Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
02/21/2025 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 | |
| Overview: Fy 26 Department Budget by the Public Defender Agency | |
| Overview: Fy 26 Department Budget by Department of Law | |
| Overview: Fy 26 Department Budget by the Alaska Court System | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 21, 2025
1:34 p.m.
1:34:08 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Josephson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Terrance Haas, Public Defender, Public Defender Agency,
Department of Administration; Treg Taylor, Attorney
General, Department of Law; Cori Mills, Deputy Attorney
General, Civil Division Department of Law; John Skidmore,
Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of
Law; Noah Klein, Associate Counsel, Alaska Court System;
Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System.
SUMMARY
HB 53 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET; CAP; SUPP
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
OVERVIEW: FY 26 DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
AGENCY
OVERVIEW: FY 26 DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW
OVERVIEW: FY 26 DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY THE ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making reappropriations; 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. 55
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
^OVERVIEW: FY 26 DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
AGENCY
1:35:17 PM
TERRANCE HAAS, PUBLIC DEFENDER, PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled "State of Alaska Department of
Administration Public Defender Agency: Presentation to
House Finance Committee," dated February 21, 2025 (copy on
file). He noted that the Public Defender Agency (PDA) had
been well taken care of by the legislature in the past
couple of years and did not have any big requests in the FY
26 budget. He provided an overview on slide 2. He described
PDA as the frontline indigent defense agency in Alaska. The
agency took 83 to 85 percent of all indigent appointments
made by the court after determining an individual did not
have sufficient resources. All clients were either
constitutionally mandated to have a lawyer, or they
received a lawyer by statute. He noted that the agency's
enabling statute listed all of the things for which a
person could get a public defender.
Mr. Haas shared that the agency handled all levels of
criminal charges as long as they came with the possibility
of being jailed. The agency also handled family defense or
Child in Need of Aid (CINA) cases (typically one of the
parents and sometimes one of the children) when children
were taken into custody and parental rights were at risk.
The agency handled civil commitment cases when individuals
were brought into the state's custody for mental health
reasons, also known as Title 47 cases. In all of the cases,
if a disposition in the case resulted in a conviction or
someone's children being removed or parental rights being
terminated, or an individual was held in a facility of some
kind, the agency's Post-Conviction Unit handled appeals and
petitions for post-conviction relief. Appeals were a
request to a higher court to make a decision, whereas a
post-conviction case occurred when someone filed a separate
case challenging their conviction saying their lawyer was
ineffective, there was insufficient evidence, or new
evidence. A small portion of PDA's work was the
administration of its own agency.
1:38:02 PM
Mr. Haas provided a pie chart reflecting attorneys by
practice area on slide 3. The agency's primary focus was
criminal work. The agency had 20 lawyers working on family
defense cases, 15 lawyers working on appeals and post
convictions, and 5 lawyers handling administration
including oversight of supervision and case management. He
moved to a map of Alaska on slide 4 showing where the
agency's attorneys, offices, and vacancies were located. He
clarified that a column titled "Starting in 2025" reflected
lawyers that had been hired but, in most instances, had not
yet graduated from law school. The individuals would have
to graduate and pass the bar prior to starting work. The
"Recruiting for" column reflected positions that had not
yet been hired. The total number of empty seats was the
total of the two columns. His focus on recruitment and
retention focused on the column showing the agency was
still recruiting. He had been with the agency for just over
a year and prior to his tenure a recruitment and
development deputy position had been created to find
lawyers (experienced lawyers if possible) and to oversee
training efforts. He relayed that one of the things the
agency's attorneys reported when they left was that they
felt they were handling cases they did not know enough
about. He explained that if the lawyers could be trained
and were given the tools and support needed, they were more
apt to stay with the agency.
Mr. Haas continued reviewing slide 4. The agency had 13
offices spread across the state, some were quite remote and
some were urban. Anchorage was the largest office followed
by Fairbanks and Palmer.
Co-Chair Josephson referenced Mr. Haas's statement about
exit interviews. He thought Mr. Haas had stated that
attorneys reported not knowing what cases were about. He
interpreted it to mean that the law was so complicated that
the lawyers did not always know if they intellectually
brought every argument possible. He asked if attorneys were
sufficiently trained on day one.
Mr. Haas replied that the day a lawyer graduated from law
school they knew almost nothing about how to practice law.
When the agency hired brand new lawyers they arrived
needing to know how to do the day-to-day work of being a
lawyer. Part of that included gaining substantive knowledge
in the area they were practicing law. He elaborated that
lawyers were people who knew how to learn the law, but they
did not already know it all. Whenever possible, he started
new lawyers at a misdemeanor level to have them learn how
things worked from there. He elaborated that in private
practice, new lawyers or "baby lawyers" in a big firm did
not know how to get something to the courthouse and it took
them five times longer to do something an experienced
lawyer would do in a few minutes; therefore, their billing
rate was discounted. The PDA did not bill hours, but it had
to assume new lawyers would require significant oversight
resources. He noted that a failure to do so could result in
cases where the conviction was found later to be unlawful
or problematic in some other way, which could result in the
reversal of a decision and could create significantly more
work. He relayed that the agency was heavily focused on the
issue.
1:42:23 PM
Representative Hannan referenced the three positions
starting in Anchorage and three positions starting in
Bethel in 2025. She observed that the agency was still
recruiting for positions in other locations. She asked how
long a person was bound to a specific position within the
agency. For example, in the education sector a beginning
teacher may take a remote job before they could move to the
road system in Palmer or Fairbanks, which may be considered
a better location in the teaching world. She asked how long
an attorney had to remain in Bethel after committing to a
position before they could internally look at other jobs.
Mr. Haas answered it was one of the great conundrums of
operating an agency in Alaska. He described it as a
"mothership" problem where so much of the state's
population and resources were in Anchorage and often it was
viewed as the place people wanted to be. One of his jobs
was to make it clear that an attorney may want to be in one
of the rural locations. He shared that he practiced in
Bethel for ten years before he was a judge in the same
location for five years. He viewed it as one of the best
places to possibly practice and he got a lot out of the
experience. He explained that part of the work was
communicating to young lawyers what could be gained by
working in places like Bethel and Nome. The agency did not
have an exact policy requiring individuals to commit to a
given number of years in a specific location. The agency
made it clear that an individual was expected to make a
commitment to live in a specific location where their
clients were located. He elaborated that individuals were
also told that if they succeeded, they were likely to
advance up in the agency more quickly than if they went
directly to work in a city because the agency valued the
experience.
Representative Hannan replied that she was thrilled to hear
Mr. Haas's response and she recalled that he had worked in
Bethel and worked up to being a judge. She presumed that he
could tell a law school student that by practicing in
Bethel they would have exposure to a wide diversity of
cases that they may not see for years working in Anchorage
as one of 62 lawyers and they would see the important role
of a public defender daily in their community.
Mr. Haas agreed. He stated that a person working in rural
Alaska doing a good job would show up on the radar.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if all 129 PCNs [position control
numbers] were filled.
Mr. Haas clarified that there was a total of 129 PCNs. He
explained that 7 of that total had been hired, but the new
employees had not yet started and 11 of the total remained
in open status.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that the agency
was trying to fill all of its positions and leave no
vacancies.
Mr. Haas replied affirmatively.
1:45:54 PM
Representative Galvin appreciated hearing there was no
request for anything more at the current juncture. She had
visited six of the prisons during the interim. She
understood some incarcerated Alaskans were waiting for
trial and had been waiting longer than what she would
consider to be a speedy trial. She thought Mr. Haas made it
sound like everything was rolling along perfectly, but she
heard something different. She asked for context.
Mr. Haas responded that he was happy with the way things
were going within his agency, but there were things to work
on in the criminal justice system. He stated that there
were certainly instances where there was a lot of delay.
One of the difficulties in the press was there were some
cases that stood out as extreme examples. He was worried
about those, but "as a good bureaucrat" he was concerned
more about the overall picture of things. He remarked that
there was still more delay than there should be in many
cases. He saw slow improvement, which was not surprising.
He explained that sometimes he was hiring in the middle of
winter for an attorney who would not arrive until August.
He elaborated that when brand new lawyers were hired it was
necessary to provide the education and support needed to
make it to the point where they were happy. He remarked
that it could be a snowball effect if people were not happy
or overworked and it could result in the loss of employees
that had to be built back up. He stated the agency had a
lot of work to ensure its lawyers had the experience they
needed. Additionally, the agency had work to do addressing
the backlog.
Representative Galvin asked for verification that the
agency had a plan where once the younger newer attorneys
were trained that things would level off and there would be
a different outcome with regard to the average wait time
for trials to begin.
Mr. Haas pledged to do his part. He noted that the number
of actors and people involved was extraordinarily
complicated.
Co-Chair Schrage observed that Utqiagvik was shown on the
map on slide 4. He asked why it was not listed under
offices on the slide. He asked how those cases were being
managed.
Mr. Haas answered that the cases were currently managed out
of Fairbanks, which he did not like. He would like there to
be an attorney in the Utqiagvik office; over the years it
had been the most difficult office to recruit for. Housing
was an enormous issue, and he was thinking about ways to
deal with it. He had been in the office for about one year
and he likened it to dog years, meaning it was about five
minutes of agency time. He would keep working on the
issues. He relayed that Utqiagvik had an office with a
local staff person, but it did not have an attorney. He
reiterated that he would like to fix that.
Representative Bynum discussed workforce development. He
stated it was necessary to take a holistic review of the
pipeline of everything from K-12 all the way to people
going into retirement and the Department of Corrections was
part of that. He stated there was an ecosystem in PDA that
involved managing caseload and getting cases resolved. He
noted there were people in custody waiting for trial with
no convictions. He referenced Mr. Haas's statement that he
was happy with the way things were currently. He remarked
that if a person was on a sinking ship and everyone had
their finger in a hole, the person was likely fairly happy
with the condition. He was trying to get a better idea of
the holistic ecosystem of the criminal justice system. He
noted that PDA was one part of that system. He asked if the
agency was coordinating through the Department of
Administration (DOA) to look at the whole picture and
determine whether justice was being done for residents
whether it was prosecutions, adjudicating, or defending. He
was interested to learn how the legislature could get a
better picture of the situation because it was responsible
for funding. He wanted to know how healthy the system was
and how to create efficiencies to save money and adjudicate
cases on a quicker timeline.
1:52:11 PM
Mr. Haas answered that how to determine the overall health
of the system was a big question. He stated there were
indicators of that health, some of which were difficult
currently and some of which were better. He advanced to
slide 6 titled "PDA: Workload Five-Year Lookback" to help
answer the question. He noted that the slide showed some
basic numbers reflecting how cases moved through PDA. He
clarified that the Department of Law was a different
department and the individuals he reported to were in DOA
where defense services were located. He noted that the
agency was the "odd man out" within DOA. He looked at the
information and noted there was still a lot of work to do,
including pretrial delay that was a constant issue needing
attention. He looked at the number of cases coming in,
going out, and in the open/active category. He pointed to a
graph showing that appointments from the court (reflecting
the numbers coming in) were going down modestly from FY 20.
He remarked that the decrease likely reflected numerous
things that would take a whole study to figure out.
Mr. Haas moved to the middle graph on slide 6 showing the
disposition rate: the rate at which cases were resolved. He
detailed that 100 percent would mean the agency resolved as
many cases as it received. Anything over 100 percent meant
the caseload was shrinking and anything under 100 percent
indicated the caseload was growing. The rate was at 90
percent in FY 20 and FY 21, indicating a growth rate of
approximately 10 percent. By FY 22 the rate was 107 percent
and remained over 100 percent the following two years,
meaning the caseload was coming down. He clarified that it
did not mean everyone was happy and had the caseload they
needed and that caseloads were as small as they should be,
but it meant that steady progress was being made.
Mr. Haas looked at the third graph on slide 6 showing
open/active cases in January from FY 20 to FY 25. In FY 20
the number was 10,000, which increased dramatically to
14,000 in FY 21. The number had steadily declined and in FY
25 it was 8,936. He clarified that the caseloads were still
very difficult and the job was not easy. He noted that the
job would never be easy, but the agency should continue to
bring the numbers down. As he recruited the numbers would
continue to decline. He relayed that the graphs on slide 6
were all indicators of health and progress. He clarified
that they did not suggest that a goal had been achieved,
but they strongly suggested that the agency was moving in
the right direction. As caseloads decreased, lawyers would
be happier, stay longer, gain more experience, and they
would be able to handle their caseloads effectively, which
would allow the agency to move some of the backlog cases.
He believed other presenters would be able to talk in more
detail about the types and age of cases.
Representative Bynum observed that the caseload equated to
130 cases per attorney if the distribution was even. He did
not believe the distribution was even, which meant some
offices were overrun. He asked what constituted a healthy
caseload.
Mr. Haas replied that there was an older cap set by the
American Bar Association. He noted it was very dependent on
case type. For example, one unclassified felony was a large
case to handle, and it was possible to handle many more
misdemeanors; therefore, caseloads tended to be weighted.
He offered to follow up with the specifics from the
particular caseload standard. Since then, there was more
research and more standards. He explained it was a
difficult and controversial question.
Representative Bynum requested the information through Co-
Chair Josephson's office.
Co-Chair Josephson believed the attorneys were maxed out
and working hard. Additionally, he had no reason to
challenge the data for appointments and disposition rates.
He also believed media accounts suggesting there were grave
problems. He did not know how to unravel it. He asked for
comment.
Mr. Haas answered that he wished he had an answer about
what thing would fix the problem. He knew there were recent
media accounts of problems with specific cases and a lot of
attention paid to the delay in the system and the sense
that defendants and victims were waiting too long to get to
their disposition. He stated that it was a problem that
would take significant time to address. He noted that a
healthy defense system helped move things along. He
elaborated that attorneys who knew a case and knew what
they were doing could bring cases to a resolution much more
quickly through negotiations with the prosecution and
figuring out which cases should go to trial. Currently, his
lawyers had too many cases to be doing that as effectively
as possible. He believed in coming fiscal years he would
make a request as he got a sense of what the caseloads
looked like going forward and as people gained experience.
He thought PDA likely needed a few more lawyers, but it was
hard to measure currently. He wanted to figure out how
existing resources were working before requesting more.
1:59:14 PM
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that presenters during the
meeting would review their budgets and purported trial
backlogs. He stated that the legislature had been told a
couple of years back that the agency could not take any
more cases. He recalled it was a western Alaska problem in
particular. He asked if the situation had been fixed. He
recognized that Mr. Haas had just stated the agency could
use more attorneys. He asked if the problem had been
remedied in part by contractual increases (i.e., the hiring
of outside counsel) and by other legislative contributions.
He surmised that things were a lot better and asked if that
was true.
Mr. Haas believed things were improving significantly. He
noted there was a crisis at one point that involved not
having enough attorneys to move around to places where
cases needed to be handled. He noted that it remained an
issue - he believed DOL and the Office of Public Advocacy
would say the same - there would still be difficulty
getting individuals trained up for the most serious cases.
He did not have enough attorneys with the appropriate
experience to handle the most serious cases. He could not
produce them overnight. He stated that he could find a
certain percentage of experienced lawyers who were ready
and willing to come have the Alaska adventure, but not
enough to solve the problems immediately. The agencies'
ability to contract for cases made a big difference. He
referenced empty PCNs and the question about what PDA was
doing with its money if it was not paying attorneys. He
explained that the agency was paying lawyers with the
funding because the work did not decrease merely because
the agency did not have lawyers in the office. Much of the
resources went to contract private attorneys to handle
cases to get the job done. He explained that it created
some breathing room allowing the agency to address the
problem. One of the first things he had done in his
position was create a deputy focused on recruitment,
training, and retention, which he believed had already
begun to make a difference.
Co-Chair Josephson was the most sensitive to the Public
Defender Agency out of the three agencies presenting. He
did not expect PDA to say it was the cause of delay. He
noted he had distributed a copy of Rule 45 from the Rules
of Criminal Procedure (copy on file). He read from Rule
45(d)(2) related to speedy trials and excluded periods:
"...only if it is satisfied that the postponement is
in the interest of justice, taking into account the
public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal
offenses, and after consideration of the interests of
the crime victim."
Co-Chair Josephson provided a hypothetical scenario where
PDA had a new client who pled not guilty, wanted no motion
practice and asked for the discovery and a trial within 120
days. He recognized that it was what PDA was required to
do. He stated that the agency may advise the client it was
against their self-interest. He asked if the court drilled
down with PDA attorneys if the agency wanted to waive Rule
45 to determine what the delay was about. He stated it
suggested it was supposed to happen and findings were made,
which he believed would take a long time. He asked what
information Mr. Haas was comfortable sharing about trial
and disposition delays.
2:03:50 PM
Mr. Haas answered that one thing to note with Rule 45 that
a stack of caselaw was needed to understand the meaning of
much of the rule. He noted that the court had interpreted
the rule in many ways. He explained that the court was
supposed to make a case specific evaluation of a delay. He
elaborated that if the defense attorney requested to have
the case continued, the court was supposed to ask him what
needed to be done to do so. He believed an increasing
number of courts were doing that. He addressed the question
of when to ask for a delay. He stated that from the defense
perspective, it was not always in the defendant's favor to
continue a case. He was obligated to request a continuance
if it would be strategically helpful or if he thought it
was absolutely necessary for him to be an effective lawyer.
He elaborated that if a prosecutor did not want a
continuance, they presented their argument, and the judge
had the difficult job of deciding what to do. He noted that
a more recent difficulty was that it was not uncommon for
both sides to request a continuance. He believed the court
was still obligated to go through the facts specific to a
case and why a continuance was requested.
Co-Chair Josephson informed the committee that when he
entered Rule 45 into the Alaska Court System library, the
search resulted in 447 cases. He remarked that many of the
instances would be superficial, but there would be scores
of cases interpreting the rules. He noted Mr. Haas had
skipped slide 5.
Mr. Haas addressed slide 5 showing a five-year budget
lookback. He referenced his earlier statement that the
legislature and administration had been very supportive of
the agency. The slide showed the agency's increase in
budget, which was not unreasonable and primarily reflected
an increase in attorney salaries in the past couple of
years.
2:06:40 PM
Mr. Haas turned to slide 7 and discussed PDA challenges.
The biggest challenge was getting brand new attorneys from
where they began to where they needed to be to handle the
large number of serious cases to provide effective
assistance to clients and to provide them with the
expertise they relied on and that he believed made Alaska's
justice system one of the best in the nation and world. He
elaborated that recruiting, retaining, and training the
agency's attorneys was a big part of his job. Discovery
processing and management was another challenge that would
likely result in a financial request in the future. Since
his start date of 2008 in Bethel, the amount of discovery
had increased exponentially. He detailed that officers now
wore body cameras when they arrived on a scene, which
resulted in hundreds to thousands of hours of video and
many terabytes of information. He explained that the
prosecution was obligated to provide it to PDA and the
agency was obligated to review it on behalf of its clients.
He reported that the staff and lawyer time it took to
review the information had and would continue to increase
extraordinarily.
2:08:30 PM
Representative Galvin referenced recruitment and retention
out of law school. She recalled the previous year a program
was presented to the legislature with a plan to bring
students to Alaska for a summer session after their first
year to use the university and bring them up to speed in an
internship program. She asked if it was through PDA or
another agency.
Mr. Haas replied that he was not familiar with the program,
but he would need to look into it to provide an answer. He
relayed that the agency had a solid intern program and
recruited through internships. Additionally, the agency
recruited law clerks. He noted that Alaska did not have a
law school; therefore, it was necessary to find people who
wanted to have their Alaska adventure.
Representative Galvin believed the program she mentioned
was through another department, but she found it relevant
to the current conversation.
Mr. Haas replied that he was interested.
Co-Chair Schrage looked at PDA's challenge associated with
the loss of experienced attorneys and the increase of brand
new attorneys. He relayed that the subcommittee had talked
about some of the trends in the workforce. He asked Mr.
Haas to expand on some of the things that had kept longer
term attorneys employed in the agency.
Mr. Haas answered there were many factors. He stated that
the best lawyers who stayed the longest had a passion for
the work, which did not have anything to do with retirement
or anything else. He detailed that sometimes people left if
the pay was not good enough because they could not afford
to keep doing it. He believed that all agencies with
lawyers would tell the committee there was a certain kind
of person who was up for an Alaska adventure with a passion
for the work. He relayed that when those individuals stayed
with the agency it was where PDA got its core of people to
keep the energy level where it ought to be. In terms of
other factors, some of the oldest and most experienced
lawyers who were working to get their "high three" years in
their pension plan. He explained that each time the pay was
increased it likely increased the number of those
individuals willing to stay on. Another factor was burnout.
He thought it was fair to say that not everyone had it in
them to be a lifelong public defender. He stated it was a
special and wonderful kind of person. He had to expect that
the majority of people who came to work for the agency
would put in a good few years and most likely move on in
government or the private sector.
2:12:14 PM
Representative Hannan noted that the presentation did not
include much of the agency's budget information. She
referenced the technology element and massive increase in
discovery from things like body cameras. She believed it
was four years back when the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) started requesting digital clerks, processing, and
new computers associated with the implementation of body
cameras. She asked if the agency's budget request included
an increment for the technology component to ensure its
attorneys were not spending all of their time restarting
their computers to get through the discovery of massive
amounts of data the agency had to process, DPS had to
store, and the courts had to make sure the information was
accessible.
Mr. Haas answered that he had preliminarily started a
discussion with DOL about how to work on the issue. The
biggest complication was there were several agencies across
a couple of departments that needed to coordinate. He
remarked that failure to do so would result in fancy
software and equipment that would not do the job. The
requests would be in his budget, but he wanted to be
thoughtful about what he was requesting and how it was
done. He suspected DOL would agree that the only way it
would work was to work together. He noted that DOL had to
provide PDA with enormous files across networks. The agency
needed to have the storage, capacity, and ability to review
the information. He appreciated the question and it was on
his radar.
2:14:23 PM
Co-Chair Josephson moved to the next presentation from the
Department of Law (DOL).
^OVERVIEW: FY 26 DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
2:14:28 PM
TREG TAYLOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced himself and others at the table. He remarked
that it would become clear that the Civil and Criminal
Divisions operated very differently, which made for
interesting meetings when talking about recruitment and
retention due to the divisions' different needs. He noted
that some of the needs of one conflicted with some of the
needs of the other and it was a constant balancing act. He
introduced a PowerPoint presentation titled "Alaska
Department of Law," dated February 21, 2025 (copy on file).
He began on slide 2 and reviewed the department leadership.
He turned to slide 3 and noted that the department had
revised its mission statement several years back to
encompass core responsibilities and allow it to develop a
plan for improving in the areas. The improvements were made
through training, reorganizations, policy changes, hiring
and retention decisions, and by redefining the department's
relationship with its clients. He was proud of the progress
that had been made and of the work performed daily by the
attorneys.
2:17:00 PM
CORI MILLS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, discussed the Civil Division on slide 3.
She reported that the division focused on providing high-
quality legal services to the executive branch. She
elaborated that the division represented all agencies in
state government in one way or another. The division had
about 144 attorneys and a total of around 250 staff
including attorneys, law office assistants, and paralegals.
She noted the vacancy rate was doing well and the division
was feeling good about its status compared to several years
back. The division was currently recruiting for nine
attorneys, three law office assistants, and one paralegal.
She relayed that three years back the division had 24 open
attorney positions. The division was filling the positions
less quickly than it would like. She explained that the
number of students graduating from law school had
decreased, meaning the supply was not very high and the
demand from private and public legal firms was much higher;
therefore, the number of applicants received by the
division was lower. She reported that the division used to
get 20 applicants for a job and now it was happy to receive
three. Filling jobs took longer, and everyone was pulling
from the same pool of law students around the U.S. Another
challenge facing the division in the five-year timeframe
was the fact that 30 of its employees would be up for
retirement. She noted that it did not account for normal
attrition. The division was looking at ways to build a
deeper bench to avoid scrambling in the future.
2:20:06 PM
Ms. Mills turned to slide 5 titled "Biggest Law Firm in the
State." She shared that the division had to bill its hours.
A pie chart on the slide reflected the number of hours
worked for all of the agencies represented by the division.
The Department of Family and Community Services (DFCS) was
the highest. She elaborated that DFCS housed the Child in
Need of Aid (CINA) and Office of Children's Services (OCS)
and the Civil Division was responsible for all of the
cases, which were about 3,000 per year. The division was
also responsible for all of the mental commitments,
guardianships, and conservatorships under DFCS and the
Department of Health (DOH). She explained that the division
was responsible for work under all Alaska Statutes with the
exception of Titles 11 and 12.
Representative Hannan had heard in finance subcommittees
that labor relations and bargaining for the state was
moving from the Department of Administration (DOA) to the
Civil Division. She asked if it meant the division would
need to recruit additional attorneys. She assumed the
division had always been involved in the labor relations
aspect. She asked how it impacted the division's staffing
and budget needs.
Ms. Mills pointed to the gray section of the pie chart on
slide 5 reflecting DOA. She noted that DOA was a broad
department including the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV);
the Division of Retirement and Benefits (DRB), which
represented a large amount of work including a lot of
administrative hearing work; and the Division of Personnel
and what used to be Labor Relations. She explained that the
Civil Division had always had a portion of the work,
especially the employment work. The division had an
attorney that specialized in employment law and advised the
Division of Personnel and delt with employment litigation
and employment actions. The division had helped with labor
relations and negotiations in various circumstances over
the years. She elaborated that the division helped with
arbitrations when they were complicated or required legal
expertise.
Ms. Mills skipped ahead to slide 10 titled "Labor Relations
Funding." She detailed that the division had received four
positions from the DOA Labor Relations unit. She clarified
that the positions were labor relations analysts and one
paralegal, not attorneys. The positions were still doing
the same work they did under Labor Relations. The division
was looking to add one attorney position to assist with the
cases. She explained that some of the cases would remain
under the DOA Division of Personnel because they would
continue to do low level disciplinary grievance-type
matters that employee relations was better capable of
doing. The Civil Division was focused on labor
negotiations, and as grievances worked into arbitrations,
which resulted in more legal work. The departments tried to
be intentional with how the work was divided. She reported
that thus far, the work was going well. Only two of the
four positions received by the division had been filled and
the division had since filled the remaining two positions.
The division had received good feedback from the
individuals who had come to work for them; they liked the
proximity to attorneys they could ask questions about
contracts.
2:24:33 PM
Ms. Mills moved to the Civil Division budget on slide 6
titled "Funding Sources." She detailed that about 50
percent of the division's budget was paid for through other
agencies. She pointed to a bar graph on the slide and noted
that the dark blue portion of the bars reflected money the
division received from other agencies paying for its
services. The division billed in six-minute increments and
sent a bill to the agencies. She explained the reason with
an example. She detailed that if DOH received federal
funding, it could pay for legal services with some of the
funding, but if it went directly to DOL, it would all have
to be paid for with state funds. She explained it boiled
down to figuring out the best use for the money coming into
Alaska's treasury. The bottom blue portion of the bars
represented undesignated general funds (UGF). The small
strip in the middle of the bars shown in yellow reflected
designated general funds (DGF) made up of the small amount
the division received from the regulatory cost charge, the
receipts through the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
for the division's public advocate position under the RCA.
Ms. Mills turned to "FY2024 Monies Collected" on slide 7.
The division brought in about $19 million in FY 24. She
noted that the number did not include opioid remediation
funds brought in through various opioid lawsuits and
settlements, which amounted to about $100 million over a
15-year timeframe.
Representative Galvin asked for a definition of the term
"special litigation" shown on slide 7.
Ms. Mills answered that the Special Litigation Section was
created about eight years back. She explained that special
litigation was found in many attorneys general's offices
and the focus was having a highly specialized team of
litigators for complex litigation with large amounts of
discovery and depositions or with complicated legal
questions requiring numerous procedural moves in the court.
She explained that it was litigation that would not go to
an inexperienced attorney.
Representative Galvin asked for detail about the procedures
and monies collected by the Special Litigation Section of
the division.
Ms. Mills stated that Special Litigation Section was also
responsible for consumer protection. She explained that
consumer protection was a unit within Special Litigation
because much of its work was complex multistate litigation.
The money collected was brough in through antitrust actions
or violations of the state's consumer protection laws.
2:28:34 PM
Ms. Mills advanced to slide 8 showing the history of
statehood defense appropriations. She detailed that in FY
21, the legislature appropriated the division's first $4
million multiyear increment, which was available for three
consecutive years. She reported that the increment had been
spent. The next $2 million was appropriated in FY 23 and
had been spent. A small amount had been appropriated
specifically for issues in the Tongass, but the cases had
not taken off in the way others had. The division had spent
about $68,000 of the funds, but she expected the cases to
heat up in the next year. She recognized there was a new
federal administration and noted that it was subject to the
new administration. The division received $5 million in FY
24, which was the pot of money the division was currently
working off of. As of the end of December, the division
spent $1.7 million of the $5 million appropriation. She
estimated that the division's spend had been $2 million to
$3 million per year. The $5 million would expire next year
and the division would have to assess what it needed at
that time.
2:30:20 PM
Ms. Mills turned to slide 9 titled "Requesting Continuation
of Temporary Increment." The past session the legislature
approved $500,000 as a temporary increment for FY 25
intending to add the same increment for three years. She
clarified that the $500,000 did not go into the division's
base budget. She explained that the money would expire at
the end of the FY 25 fiscal year. The appropriation bill
the previous session included intent language saying the
legislature was expected to appropriate $500,000 for the
next two fiscal years, which would lapse at the end of each
fiscal year. The division was requesting the $500,000
increment in the FY 26 budget. She imagined the following
year she would have a better picture of what the division
would need going forward based on federal litigation, where
the federal administration stood, and what it had done to
the division's cases.
Co-Chair Schrage recalled that much of the statehood
defense activity was around defending the state's rights to
develop natural resources, build roads, and fight off
federal shutdowns of the activity the state felt it had the
right to pursue. He asked if the depiction was accurate.
Ms. Mills agreed.
Co-Chair Schrage imagined the new administration that had
already put out an executive order in support of Alaska
developing its natural resources and securing energy
dominance was much more friendly to Alaska in terms of
state's rights. He asked if litigation was expected to fall
precipitously and if some of the pursuits may be nullified
or no longer necessary.
Ms. Mills answered it was currently a bit of a crystal ball
and hard to pinpoint things. There were currently slightly
over 80 statehood defense related cases. She detailed that
the division had tried to use existing and new funding
sources to get by. She explained that winding down cases
did not happen overnight, and she did not believe they
would go away immediately, especially because there were
third parties involved in some of the lawsuits. She thought
the cases would likely remain for the next year or two. She
believed there may be increased litigation against actions
the federal government was taking where the state may be
aligned with the federal government. There still may be
litigation where the state would want to assert its
interest because it differed from the federal government's
interest. The division would have to evaluate the cases as
they arose. She reiterated that over the next two years
there may be an increase, which she thought would decline
and level off.
2:34:08 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, addressed the mission of the Criminal
Division on slide 11. The division's primary mission was to
seek justice. When the division looked at cases, it
evaluated whether there was sufficient and appropriate
evidence to file charges and move forward. Additionally,
the division's mission included the promotion of public
safety and public respect for government through prompt,
effective, and compassionate prosecution of cases. He
recognized there had been some discussion earlier in the
meeting about delays and time to disposition. He was
familiar with the topic and offered to provide information
if committee members had questions.
Mr. Skidmore turned to a map on slide 12 identifying where
the Criminal Division offices were located throughout the
state. The division had had two sections including the
Office of Criminal Appeals and the Office of Special
Prosecutions, which handled cases from all over the state.
He detailed that the division had 13 offices and nine
district attorneys. Four of the district attorney offices
had satellite offices. For example, the division had
personnel located in Utqiagvik, but the district attorney
was located in Fairbanks and supervised from there. He
noted that Johan Earthman supervised Kotzebue from Nome,
Brittany Dunlap supervised Dillingham from Anchorage, and
Whitney Bostick supervised Sitka from Juneau. The division
also had the central office where he and Criminal Division
Director Angie Kemp were located along with individuals
providing legal services to the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) and administrative issues for the division.
2:37:05 PM
Co-Chair Josephson thought it appeared that Valdez and
Homer were outliers in that they were homes of superior
courts but there was an itinerant prosecutor covering those
calendars.
Mr. Skidmore answered that he did not have the map of court
locations on hand. He believed there were 44 or 47 court
locations statewide and the Criminal Division did not have
offices in all of the locations. He confirmed that each of
the division's offices covered court locations. For
example, Dillingham covered Naknek, Kodiak had some other
locations on Kodiak Island, Anchorage went out to St Paul
and Unalaska, etcetera. Each office had some other court
locations they had to cover.
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 13 titled "How We Achieve
Our Mission." He explained that the division covered a vast
majority of criminal prosecutions in the state including
anything that was a violation of state criminal law. The
division did not prosecute federal crimes, which were
handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office (there were
occasional individuals who were cross-deputized, but it was
rare). The division did not typically prosecute violations
of municipal law, which were under a municipal ordinance
and not state statute. There was a recent exception where
the Municipality of Anchorage was short-staffed, and the
division had been providing some assistance in covering
trials. Additionally, the division did not prosecute
traffic tickets. There were some prosecutor's offices in
the Lower 48 that would handle traffic tickets, but that
was not the case in Alaska. He noted that law enforcement
handled traffic tickets.
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 14 titled "Felonies." He
reported that the division had more cases that were being
disposed of than were filed. He explained that it was
decreasing attorneys' caseloads and the backlog in the
courts. He stated that progress was being made, but
substantial work remained. He explained that the number of
felonies filed was decreasing because for the past three
years the state's crime rate was the lowest it had been in
the past 40 years. He relayed that public safety was
improving, but it did not mean improvements could not be
made. The graph on the left reflected felony filings (in
blue) versus dispositions (in orange). The graph on the
right represented felony trials. The graph showed the
number of felony trials pre-COVID-19, how the numbers
dropped off during the pandemic, and the conviction rate.
He noted that the conviction rate had been increasing along
with the number of trials, which he attributed significant
progress in resolutions and dispositions. When the division
went to trial and was successful it saw a larger number of
cases that ended up going to changes and plea. He
elaborated that people accepted offers because the threat
of trial.
2:41:07 PM
Representative Galvin asked about Mr. Skidmore's remark
that the state had the lowest crime rate in 40 years. She
wondered where the statistic had come from. She asked if
Mr. Skidmore had any data indicating it was possible that
some crimes were not being reported anymore. She had heard
repeatedly in her community council meetings about things
that had happened where individuals were going to Facebook
to find who stole a car and other similar occurrences.
Mr. Skidmore replied that in the past year there was a 15
percent decrease in sexual assaults reported. He was
referring to the Uniform Crime Rate, and the numbers were
found in the annual report published by DPS. He addressed
the decrease in sexual assaults reported and questioned
whether there were really fewer sexual assaults or if there
were cases that were not being reported. He served on the
Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (CDVSA) and
the agency would be doing a victimization survey that would
try to assess the amount of victimization occurring that
was different than determining the number of cases reported
to law enforcement. To his knowledge there was not a
victimization survey for property offenses, and he did not
know how to quantify it. He stated that for three years in
a row, having a consistent reduction in the crime rate was
significant. He did not know if everyone suddenly gave up
on reporting crimes, but when the number remained
relatively consistent, it became more significant to
researchers.
Representative Hannan stated that the current year's
budget, Child Advocacy Centers (CACs) were zero funded. She
noted that CACs were not part of the division's budget. She
did not really like the name for the centers because in
reality they were forensic child abuse and sexual assault
places. She was concerned that a lack of funding would
derail prosecutions of child abuse and sexual assault
cases. She asked how it played into the Criminal Division's
ability to prosecute the most heinous crimes if CACs were
not functioning.
Mr. Skidmore answered that funding of CACs was very
important. He noted that some funds flowed from CDVSA to
CACs. He was not familiar with the zero in the budget that
Representative Hannan referenced. He relayed that if there
was no money going to CACs and they could no longer operate
it would impact the division's ability. The CAC was a
multidisciplinary location that involved law enforcement,
medical personnel, and advocates. He explained that the
state did not want someone to have to retell the story of
their victimization over and over. He noted that the same
thing was done for adults in sexual assault cases. He
relayed that CACs had been found to be very effective and
helpful. He could not comment on the funding because he was
not familiar with it. He added that fundamentally, CACs
were important.
2:45:51 PM
Representative Hannan answered that the committee had heard
recently from CACs that their grant funds were zeroed out
in the FY 26 budget. She heard from her police department
that when there was not a functioning CAC, it was very
difficult to get the crime to prosecution. She was glad to
hear Mr. Skidmore say that CACs were a critical piece in
ensuring the state was able to prosecute child sexual abuse
cases across the state and that it was important to fund
the centers operating as a vital piece of the criminal
justice system in order to ensure prosecutions could take
place.
2:46:34 PM
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 15 titled "Misdemeanors." He
noted that felonies were more serious cases where someone
had the potential to go to jail for more than a year, while
jail time for misdemeanors was capped at a year. The chart
on the left side of the slide showed misdemeanor filings
versus deposed. The blue line representing cases filed
showed a decrease. Likewise, there was a decrease in
dispositions, but the lines had crossed and the
dispositions were higher than the filings, which was
responsible for bringing down caseloads. He related it to
the concept discussed earlier by Mr. Haas about
appointments PDA had and the number of cases coming into
the system.
Mr. Skidmore pointed to the graph on the right of slide 15
reflecting misdemeanor trials. The graph showed trials
prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, a substantial decrease
during the pandemic, and an increase post-pandemic. He
noted that similarly, the conviction rates in the trials
increased. The data meant that the backlog in the court
system was decreasing and the Criminal Division and other
criminal justice agencies were bringing down their
caseloads. Caseloads were not at the desired level, but
progress was being made.
Mr. Skidmore moved to slide 16 titled "Key Issues Impacting
Our Work." He began with the challenge related to
inexperienced workforce. The division had taken a number of
steps to address the issue including the creation of a
training unit. Time to disposition was the second challenge
shown on the slide. He detailed that the time to
disposition still created substantial challenges for the
division. The cases he had heard reported in the media were
a sample of the challenges the division faced. He believed
and hoped the division was making improvements on time to
disposition, but there were a number of cases in the system
that had substantial problems. For example, he read an
email earlier in the day about a sexual assault charged in
2016. In January 2025 the victim told the division they
were no longer cooperating. They individual told the
division they had moved on with their life and did not want
the pressure any longer. The case had to be resolved as a
coercion because of pretrial delay. There were over 43
continuances. The division filed oppositions to the
continuances, but they continued to be granted for various
reasons. He emphasized that time to disposition continued
to be a problem and the media reports were merely a sample
of the cases. The division continued to focus on the issue
and in the past month it had provided guidance to its
attorneys to begin to object to every continuance requested
that did not have a necessary component. He elaborated that
if a defense attorney had a family medical emergency he
believed a continuance was necessary. Absent those types of
circumstances, the division's attorneys would object to
continuances because the division believed continuances had
occurred far too often. He shared that in his 26 years as a
prosecutor he had gone to many trials and trial calls where
he objected to continuances and sometimes he had not been
given the opportunity to object. He stressed that it did
not happen all of the time, but it could occur. He
reiterated that the division would be objecting to all
continuances that were not absolutely necessary. He did not
know how it would impact the challenges with time to
disposition; it would play out over time. He saw it as a
fundamental problem that the division had not been
asserting the objections as objectively as it should have
been.
2:51:45 PM
Co-Chair Josephson thought Alaska's court system was the
best in the country. He referenced language in Rule 45(a)
[handout by Co-Chair Josephson] that "the court shall
consider the circumstances of the victim, particularly a
victim of advanced age or extreme youth." He cited language
from Rule 45(d)(2) that "the court shall grant such a
continuance only if it is satisfied the postponement is in
the interest of justice taking into account public
interest...and after considerations of the interest of the
crime victim." Additionally, he cited Rule 45(h) "before
ruling on a motion of continuance in a case involving a
victim...the court shall consider the victim's position."
He highlighted that the rule clearly recognized the
importance of victims. He recalled from his time as a
prosecutor in the past that the prosecutor may have a box
of 100 cases and it was not possible to have a lengthy
discussion about why there was a continuance in 100 cases.
He acknowledged it was possible, but it would take
considerable time. He asked how to solve the issue. He
appreciated Mr. Skidmore's position that Criminal Division
attorneys would object [to the request for a continuance],
but he recalled being so swamped that when Rule 45 was
waived he was relieved because he already had two trials
and a heavy workload.
Mr. Skidmore replied that he had been the sole prosecutor
in Dillingham in the past. He recalled trial calls where he
had 100 cases and they talked about all of the cases on the
call. He detailed that one-third of the cases ended up
being continued, one-third were changed to a plea, and the
remaining one-third had trials or dismissals due to a
problem with the case. He understood the dynamic Co-Chair
Josephson was describing. There were far too many cases
that were being continued and an appropriate record of the
reason for the continuance was not being created. He
explained that the state needed to do a better job doing
so. He did not mean to suggest that if the division
objected that a continuance would not be granted. He
explained that without an objection, there was no
appropriate inquiry about why the continuance was needed
that allowed the judge to make the findings Co-Chair
Josephson pointed out in Rule 45. He stressed that there
needed to be thoughtful, careful consideration. He thought
it was likely occurring in some cases, but he did not
believe it was happening in all cases. He wanted to try to
make sure it happened in all cases. The division had an
obligation to notify the victim and was required when it
went to court to say whether the victim had been notified,
what the victim's position was, and whether or they had
decided to come to court to voice their own position. He
stated that the things needed to be happening and it was an
area the department could improve on. He planned to talk
about the issue more in several minutes.
Co-Chair Josephson referenced the scenario where a case was
reduced to coercion. He asked for verification that the
division could subpoena the victim.
Mr. Skidmore replied affirmatively.
Co-Chair Josephson observed that the individual would be
quite angry.
Mr. Skidmore explained that under the circumstance, the
division would issue a criminal subpoena, the victim would
fail to show up, and the division would have the option to
obtain a material witness warrant, which essentially
indicated that because the witness failed to appear in
court, they would be arrested. The division would have to
decide whether it wanted to arrest the victim of a sexual
assault because it had taken the state a decade to get to
trial. Due to the lengthy timeframe, the individual had
moved on with their life. He stated that it was a decision
the division had to make.
2:56:37 PM
Representative Bynum considered the health of the overall
justice system and a holistic approach. He did not
necessarily need an answer in the current meeting. He
referenced the discussion about trying to make sure cases
were looked at and worked on. He remarked that a lot of the
state's small communities had police departments that were
trying to do the best for their communities. He elaborated
that those departments made arrests, which were referred to
the Criminal Division and in some cases they were pretty
serious offenses. There were several cases in small
communities where significant arrests were made related to
drug dealing. He remarked that illegal drugs could have
ravaging effects in Alaska's small communities very
quickly. He noted that multiple serious felony cases had
been brought forward and dismissed. He asked about the
department's process for communicating to communities about
why it may make a decision to drop those types of cases. He
asked what the process should be. He explained that the
situation had recently occurred and the leadership in the
communities were outraged that the cases were dropped. He
thought they did not seem to be receiving a response about
why it was happening. He asked for the standard protocol of
making a connection between DOL and law enforcement and
leadership in those communities.
Mr. Skidmore answered that he would not go into depth on
the ecosystem [of the criminal justice system] during the
current meeting, but he was happy to talk about the issue
offline. He addressed the question about the dismissal of
cases. The division's obligation was to notify victims
about what was going on in a case. He explained that drug
offences were typically considered victimless crimes,
meaning there was not a victim for the division to reach
out to. The division tried to communicate with law
enforcement about what it was doing with various cases,
there was a paperwork trail that was supposed to be making
that happen. He did not know whether it was failing in the
particular case. He always encouraged division staff to be
in continual communication with law enforcement about cases
and their status and about why the division made the
decisions it had because he believed it made for better
investigations and understanding of what was taking place.
He heard Representative Bynum saying it was not working in
a particular case. He welcomed the opportunity to talk
about the specific case offline to get to the bottom of the
issue.
3:00:03 PM
Mr. Skidmore advanced to expanding discovery obligations on
slide 17. He referenced earlier discussion about body
cameras and digital evidence. A graph on the slide provided
a representation of the exponential increase in the volume
of digital evidence. The division was taking efforts to
manage the situation through different software. He relayed
that the division had been in contact with Mr. Haas and the
PDA about how the process would take place and agreed with
Mr. Haas that there needed to be some coordination.
Additionally, with those cases there were challenges where
the division had to look at impeachment material. He
referenced the case names Brady and Giglio listed on the
slide, which talked about what the obligations were. The
department's obligation to provide the material was a
budget increment request in the division's FY 26 budget.
Mr. Skidmore discussed the three offices with the highest
caseloads within the Criminal Division on slide 18. The
offices included Dillingham, Palmer, and Ketchikan. He
detailed that Dillingham had a total of 289 cases,
including 109 felonies, which included 28 murders, sexual
abuse of minors, and sexual assaults. The average caseload
for the single prosecutor in Dillingham was 289. Palmer had
11 prosecutors with a total of 2,783 cases including 909
felonies, which included 112 murders, sexual abuse of
minors, and sexual assaults. The average caseload was 253
per attorney. He noted that for the Ketchikan office, the
division's request for positions was broader than
Ketchikan, but the division used Ketchikan numbers to try
to help illustrate the point. He highlighted that the
vacancy factor was not included on the slide. The numbers
on the slide assumed the caseload per attorney was if all
positions were filled. He explained that all positions were
not filled and were almost never filled. The division was
always striving to fill every position, but there was
turnover and he had rarely seen all positions filled. The
average caseload the division aimed for was 100. The
division's budget request included the addition of
prosecutors to each of the offices. He recognized that even
with the addition of prosecutors it would not reduce the
caseloads to 100. He elaborated that caseloads were coming
down and the division was disposing of more cases than it
was filing; therefore, the division did not want to
overshoot the mark and had made a conservative request in
its budget to try to reach the goal.
3:03:29 PM
Mr. Skidmore addressed the Criminal Division's strategic
plan (on slide 19) to reduce caseloads and for specialized
positions for Brady and post-conviction relief (PCR). He
briefly discussed a request for caseload reduction on slide
20. The request included three attorneys to go to
Dillingham, Palmer, and Ketchikan, a paralegal, and a law
office assistant. The slide also included information about
the challenges facing the division when there was a high
caseload. He moved to slide 21 titled "Request: Brady
Prosecutor." He explained that "Brady" talked about the
division's obligations to disclose information. When the
division had law enforcement officers working for the
division, and an officer's personnel file included
something to suggest there was an issue the division needed
to reveal that was of an impeachment nature (i.e., they had
done something that may suggest they were dishonest or
biased in some way). He elaborated that the division had
received over 400 alerts where an issue existed and there
was something the department needed to disclose. He
explained that it involved managing confidential personnel
files; therefore, it was a complicated process that
involved talking with law enforcement, getting them to
cooperate, and evaluating whether the information
constituted a bias in a particular case. If someone was
dishonest, it had to be provided in every case. He used an
example where an officer used excessive force, and the case
was about an assault as opposed to a theft. The division
would have to evaluate whether excessive force by the
officer became relevant impeachment in the trial.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that when an
officer had alleged to have committed a misdeed, the
division had to manage the issue potentially for the
officer's entire career.
Mr. Skidmore answered affirmatively. He explained that it
was slightly more complicated than that an individual was
alleged to have done so. There had to be some corroboration
or finding that the incident took place, which created
further complications of what to do during the pending
decision. He confirmed that if there was a finding, the
division had to manage it going forward.
Representative Hannan was startled by the number 400. She
asked if it was normal compared to other states. She asked
if Alaska had a lot of issues in its law enforcement
personnel files.
Mr. Skidmore clarified there were 10,000 to 13,000
misdemeanors and 6,000 to 7,000 felonies filed per year in
Alaska. He clarified that the number 400 pertained to 400
different cases, not 400 different officers. He explained
that there may be one officer with an issue in their file
and if they worked 100 cases, the division may receive 100
alerts for that officer. He was not saying it was the case,
but he was trying to help explain what the number meant. He
did not believe 400 was high and he did not believe Alaska
had a large significant problem within its law enforcement
ranks. There were issues that needed to be managed, but he
would not characterize them as outsized.
3:07:28 PM
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 22 titled "Post-Conviction
Relief (PCR)." He explained that PCR were cases where
someone had been charged, convicted, an appeal had been
filed and lost, and the individual was doing a "collateral
attack where they filed a civil case to claim their case
needed to be reversed for some reason. There were 376 PCRs
currently pending in Alaska. He detailed that it was more
like a civil case that engaged in civil discovery with
depositions and filing requests for information. The
attorney had to review the old files, any old court
records, and old transcripts. There were different legal
standards and issues. For example, it was the defendant,
not the prosecution who bore the burden of proof in a PCR
case. The division's budget request included an attorney to
focus on PCR cases. He noted that Mr. Haas had discussed
that the Public Defender Agency had a PCR unit responsible
for appeals and PCRs. He explained that the Criminal
Division's appellate unit was only responsible for appeals.
The division was requesting one position to help it manage
the most serious PCRs. Otherwise, PCRs were handled by the
division's line attorneys. The one new attorney would
return the division to a system that had been in place in
the past.
Mr. Skidmore referenced an earlier question about an intern
program. He relayed that the program was managed by DOL and
it had been a phenomenal success. He shared that more
individuals were applying more quickly and with greater
experience. The program had been a great benefit to the
Criminal and Civil Divisions.
Co-Chair Josephson looked at slide 18 and asked for
verification that the division wanted new prosecutors in
Dillingham, Palmer, and Ketchikan.
Mr. Skidmore agreed.
Co-Chair Josephson asked about the timeframe of the 28
murders listed under Dillingham.
Mr. Skidmore replied that he did not have the dates on
hand. He explained that the slide had been created a while
back and he could not verify it was the most recent
information.
Co-Chair Josephson realized that the number included
murders, sexual abuse of minors, and sexual assaults.
Mr. Skidmore agreed. He clarified that there was not a
sudden wave of homicides occurring in Bristol Bay.
Co-Chair Josephson assumed it would be in the interest of
the public defender, court, and the Criminal Division to
expand the Palmer courthouse.
Mr. Skidmore responded that he was not able to comment on
the needs of the court system or the public defender. From
the perspective of DOL, it had outgrown its current space
in the Palmer courthouse, and it would benefit the division
to have more space.
Co-Chair Josephson thanked the testifiers for their candid
testimony and hard work.
^OVERVIEW: FY 26 DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY THE ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM
3:10:35 PM
NOAH KLEIN, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM,
introduced himself and other available colleagues. He
thanked the committee for inviting the court system to
present to the committee. He introduced a PowerPoint
presentation titled "House Finance Committee Alaska Court
System Budget Overview," (copy on file). He began with the
court system's mission statement on slide 2 and thought it
perfectly teed up the questions about criminal case delays
because part of the court system's mission was
expeditiously deciding cases. He asked to hear from Nancy
Meade on the topic.
3:11:59 PM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, relayed
that the delays in the backlog were vastly improving. She
explained that last year, the court system took a point-in-
time-look at the number of pending cases and on January 1,
2024, there were over 15,000, compared to about 10,000 on
January 1, 2025. She noted it was a remarkable change in
one year. She explained that the court system was closing
more cases than it was opening. The public defender was
disposing more cases than it was receiving, and the
Department of Law (DOL) was closing more than it was
filing. She stated that the whole system was on a good
trajectory. She spoke about unacceptable delays in outlying
cases. She clarified that delays occurred because either
the defense attorney or the prosecutor asked for a
postponement. The court did not postpone court dates unless
something rare and serious occurred (e.g., illness). The
court had a policy of always having a judge available if
the parties were ready for trial. She elaborated that the
court brought in retired pro tem judges to handle a
particular case when necessary. She detailed that if
parties came in Monday morning ready, the court was ready
to go. To keep things moving more quickly, the courts were
scheduling trailing calendars. For example, a judge would
tell four different cases they were going to trial Monday
morning at 9:00 a.m. The expectation was that at least
three of the cases would enter into a plea bargain by
Monday morning, because experience indicated that the
closer the trial date, the quicker a case went into plea
bargain status. If two cases were ready to go to trial that
Monday morning, the department would get a retired judge to
take the second case. The court system was doing what it
could to ensure that every time the parties were ready,
they could go to trial.
Ms. Meade relayed that the backlog was being lowered and
was currently at the level it was prior to the COVID-19
pandemic. The case level was on par with 2018 and 2019. She
noted that outliers taking longer to get to disposition
were the most serious cases and were atypical. The typical
time to disposition was shorter than one may think. The
median time to disposition for misdemeanors was about six
months even for the most serious cases. The same was true
for Class C felonies including theft. She clarified that
median was not average and removed the outliers at each
end, but the court believed it was a better way to
illustrate what was more typical.
Ms. Meade explained that more serious cases took longer
because they involved more evidence, more complicated
evidence, and more parties. She relayed that Class A
felonies had a median time of three years, which could
involve delays in receiving reports from the crime lab and
the troopers and all other parties had substantially more
investigations to do. She referenced cases that may be in
the media that may take eight years or may have to be
dismissed because a victim became disillusioned with the
length of time it was taking and clarified that it was not
typical. She recognized that it was unacceptable and their
was no defense for it, but it was not occurring on repeat
and the overall system was not broken. She stated that no
one liked the delays in the system, but sometimes they
could not be helped. She addressed the question about why a
party would ask for a postponement. She referenced
testimony from agencies earlier in the meeting that they
had somewhat of an attrition problem, which was improving.
She explained that agencies had inexperienced lawyers,
which meant individuals were less able to assess the
strength of their case and what their next steps may be; it
was slower to get things done. She elaborated that if
someone left an agency and a new attorney had to step in,
the new attorney likely needed to start from square one. If
discovery had already been exchanged, the new attorney may
not be familiar with what the departing attorney had
already spent many hours on.
Ms. Meade underscored that the amount of discovery had been
growing over the past decade. For example, if an attorney
received a "phone dump" in a drug case and it took hours
for someone to go through the terabyte of information.
Cases were taking longer on average, and the median time
was growing, partially due to the circumstances in digital
discovery.
3:17:59 PM
Ms. Mead continued to discuss reasons for delays. She
relayed that part of the delay was due to attorneys.
Additionally, there were some number of defendants
represented by private counsel. She explained that private
counsel could be overworked with too many cases and there
were numerous scheduling problems. For example, if a person
was scheduled to be in a courtroom and another judge wanted
the attorney in their courtroom, something had to give. She
remarked that it was a fairly common request from private
defense attorneys because of scheduling problems; they
could not be in two places at once. She noted it was an
issue for defense attorneys and prosecutors as well, but it
was prevalent for private attorneys who had extremely high
caseloads. When a new attorney was on a case they may ask
for a continuance because they just received the discovery
or for other reasons. She explained that the court was hard
pressed to force someone to go to trial when an attorney
was not ready. She detailed that it was counterproductive
and resulted in fodder for a later claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, which turned into an appeal and
added another several years onto the timeframe. She stated
that the victim did not want that, nor did anyone else. She
characterized it as being between a rock and a hard place
when an attorney said they were not ready for trial.
Forcing attorneys to trial did not lead to results that
anyone in the system would be happy with.
Representative Tomaszewski asked if there were any
guidelines that put rails on what could be considered or
not considered a continuances. Alternatively, he asked if
it was solely at the judge's discretion.
Ms. Mead replied that the rules specified that there needed
to be good cause shown. She elaborated that if an attorney
had just been given the case, it was likely good cause.
There had been recent and older efforts by the court to
ratchet down on when continuances would be allowed. She
relayed that everyone in the system was aware that long
times to disposition were not helpful to anyone. There were
some cooperative efforts by a working group comprised of
the agencies and court system. She noted there was recently
a presiding judge order that all of the other judges had to
follow that said in part and in certain circumstances
generally good cause would not include lack of an offer,
outstanding discovery, ongoing (plea bargain) negotiations,
application to a different court, new charges, or other
pending cases unless in another jurisdiction, the
defendant's participation in a treatment program, or the
defendant being out of state because of a case in another
jurisdiction. She remarked that sometimes one of the items
had to be considered good cause. The presiding judge order
applied to an extension of the time at the very beginning
of a case prior to an indictment in a felony. The court
system was making an effort to give guidance to attorneys
about what they could and could not ask for.
3:21:47 PM
Co-Chair Josephson asked when the order had been issued.
Ms. Mead replied that the order was dated February 8, 2024.
Representative Tomaszewski suspected that the order likely
came out because some were abusing the system. He felt very
frustrated for victims when trials were delayed eight to
ten years and the victim could not take it any longer. He
was glad to hear there were remedies coming forth. He
wondered if the legislature could do anything such as
putting guidelines into law in terms of what could or could
not constitute a continuance.
Ms. Mead was happy to talk about the topic offline. There
were criminal rules (referenced earlier by Co-Chair
Josephson) that were very long with all sorts of reasons
and timeframes and with a lot of caselaw. She noted that
they would bump into due process concerns and the
ineffective assistance of counsel concerns that may be
counterproductive. She thought the effort by the court to
set some guidelines was bearing fruit, which was reflected
in the data over the past year showing improvement.
3:23:32 PM
Co-Chair Josephson returned to the presentation. He wanted
to make sure to get to the budget issues.
Mr. Klein briefly went over slides 3 and 4. The court
system was entirely state funded, all of its revenues went
into the General Fund, and the state had a unified
judiciary. Slide 4 showed a map of Alaska with superior and
district court locations across the state. There were 38
locations with 39 courthouses. He reviewed slide 5:
Alaskans Served in 2024
• 93,315 new cases filed (trial and appellate courts)
• 5,691 contacts thru the Family Law Self Help Center
• 3,573 Alaskans served on juries
• 7,738,378 visits to https://courts.alaska.gov/
• 2,664,760 CourtView searches
• 429 therapeutic court participants
• Tens of thousands of on line court forms accessed
or downloaded
3:24:41 PM
Mr. Klein addressed the caseload change from FY 23 to FY 24
on slide 6. There was a slight uptick in FY 24 after a
slight decrease in FY 23. Specifically, in the superior
court, there was a decrease of 3.4 percent. There was an
increase in the district court. Slide 7 listed factors
impacting the court system workloads:
• Population
• Demographics
• Police
• Economy
• Statutory Changes
• Recovery from Pandemic Era
• Staff Vacancies
Mr. Klein elaborated on slide 7. He relayed that due to the
state's aging population, the types of cases in Alaska were
changing. He relayed that in poor economic years, the court
system may see more family law and Child in Need of Aid
(CINA) cases. He noted that statutory changes such as the
Court Visitor Program that the legislature moved to the
court system was the type of thing that increased the court
system's workload.
3:25:46 PM
Mr. Klein relayed that the Court System vacancies were
trending downward (slide 8). The court system was proud of
the work its HR department was doing. The highest vacancy
rate was 13.3 percent in FY 21 and it had been reduced to
10 percent in the last calendar year. The current vacancy
rate was almost exactly at the 7.2 percent the court system
was funded for.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that under HB 226
[SB 259], a typical court system employee was under the
supervisory bargaining unit.
Ms. Mead replied that it was generally correct.
Mr. Klein clarified that the bill number was SB 259. He
moved to slide 9 and reviewed who worked for the court
system. There were more than 650 nonjudicial positions,
which were primarily clerical (range 10 to range 14). There
were numerous lower paying positions within the court
system in addition to the administration office, which
housed HR, fiscal, Ms. Meade and himself. He moved to slide
11 and addressed all funding sources for the court system.
A pie chart on the slide depicted the court system's budget
compared to all state agencies for all funding sources. The
judicial branch included the court system, the Judicial
Council, and the Commission on Judicial Conduct and made up
about 1.5 percent of the FY 26 operating budget request.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that filing fees
of $250 for a civil suit went to the general fund.
Mr. Klein responded affirmatively. He detailed above $7
million had been deposited into the General Fund from the
courts in the current year.
Mr. Klein turned to slide 12 and addressed a breakdown
showing where court system funding went. The vast majority
went to trial courts. Other funding areas included
administration, therapeutic courts, and appellate courts.
He looked at slide 13 showing a breakdown of where the
court system spent its money. Personal services accounted
for the vast majority of the court system budget, followed
by contractual services (facility leases).
3:28:20 PM
Mr. Klein reviewed the FY 26 budget request. The number one
item was facility maintenance and operations in the amount
of $552,300. He explained that the governor's budget
included $362,000. The increment was for lease cost
increases - Consumer Price Index (CPI) costs - as well as
utility costs and costs owed to the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities for facility
maintenance. The next increment was to true up the cost of
the court visitor services, statutorily mandated court
visitors moved to the court system from the Office of
Public Advocacy a couple of years back. He noted that it
was the last time the court system expected to request an
increment for court visitors. The budget reflected what the
court system expected its actual cost to be moving forward.
The third request was for reimbursable services agreements
(RSAs) for staff members in the therapeutic courts. He
explained that the individuals were employees of executive
branch agencies working for the therapeutic courts and paid
for by the court system through RSAs. He noted that the
employees received raises and the increment would cover
those raises. The budget request included $92,400 was for
two positions in therapeutic courts, which were primarily
funded with Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA)
money. The money did not cover the full cost of the
positions. The UGF portion of the two positions combined
was $92,400.
Co-Chair Josephson looked at the asterisk at the bottom of
slide 14 and asked how the governor's office had derived
the figure of $188,800.
Mr. Klein replied that he did not know.
Mr. Klein addressed FY 26 operating requests (non-UGF) on
slide 15. The first increment was the AMHTA money for the
two positions he had just discussed. There was $200,000 in
interagency federal receipts from the Child Support
Division to fund an additional position in the early
resolution project.
Co-Chair Josephson referenced Rule 45. He thought it seemed
to say if there was a motion to suppress that no pretrial
motion shall be held under advisement for more than 30
days. He noted he was not saying it was not happening. He
interpreted the rule to say that when the court system
received an important substantive motion in a criminal case
that it would act within 30 days. He thought it was strange
that the rule also stated that if the court system did not
act within 30 days it would come out of "the hide" of the
defendant in terms of the speedy trial rule. He cited that
"anything longer than 30 days shall not be considered as an
excluded period."
Ms. Mead replied that they could talk about it offline. She
did not have the rule on hand. She would need to follow
up.
Co-Chair Josephson asked for verification that the court
system was supposed to rule quickly on pretrial practice.
Ms. Mead responded affirmatively. She noted that it was
after motions were fully ripe. She noted that briefs went
back and forth before motions were ripe.
Representative Hannan looked at the asterisk on slide 14
that the governor's budget was $188,800 less than the
court's assessment of what it needed to continue on the
current trajectory. She asked if failing to receive the
additional money would slow the disposition of cases
brought before the court system.
Mr. Klein answered that he did not believe the $188,000
would slow the disposition of cases. The court system would
either find the money somewhere else or cut something that
did not impact disposition times.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there was an understanding in a
memo from 1962 that the court system would propose a budget
to the Office of Management and Budget and it would be the
amount included in the governor's budget.
Mr. Klein confirmed that until about five years back, an
operating budget from the court system came out of OMB
unchanged because the Judiciary, as an independent branch
of government, should have the ability for the legislature
to see its entire budget request as required by separation
of powers.
Co-Chair Josephson thanked the presenters. He reviewed the
schedule for the following meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
3:33:43 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| FY26 JUD/Court System Budget Overview HFIN 2-21-25.pdf |
HFIN 2/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 HB 55 |
| DOA-PDA Presentation to HFIN February 2025.pdf |
HFIN 2/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 HB 55 |
| LAW HFIN Budget Overview 2.20.25 Final.pdf |
HFIN 2/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 HB 55 |
| LAW Overview HFIN 022125 Supporting Document AS.pdf |
HFIN 2/21/2025 1:30:00 PM |