Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/27/1999 01:09 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 1999
1:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Joe Green
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
OVERVIEW: ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
PAT HARMAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding committee
member participation via teleconference.
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
820 West 4th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2005
Telephone: (907) 264-8228
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Alaska Court
System.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-2, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:09 p.m. Members present at the call to order
were Representatives Kott, Green, Rokeberg, James and Croft.
Representatives Murkowski and Kerttula arrived at 1:18 p.m. and
1:19 p.m., respectively.
COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
Number 0054
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the first order of business is discussion
on committee guidelines.
CHAIRMAN KOTT explained the committee will be meeting on Wednesday
to benefit those who want to leave early on Friday or come back
late on Monday. Right now, there isn't enough work to justify
scheduling a hearing on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. At some
point, however, the committee will get into a
Monday-Wednesday-Friday routine. Meetings will start at 1:00 p.m.
or close to it, keeping in mind that some committee members have
commitments with other committees at 3:00 p.m.
Number 0237
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated it is important to make an effort to
start on time in order to take action before losing a quorum.
CHAIRMAN KOTT explained that it takes four members to make a
quorum. Therefore, it takes four members to move a bill out of
committee. But, it only takes the majority of a quorum to adopt a
committee substitute, for example.
CHAIRMAN KOTT explained the bill packets will be available at 1:00
p.m. the preceding day of a meeting, only if the sponsor has
provided the committee aide with everything. He does not want any
surprises, especially concerning amendments.
Number 0430
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, speaking for the Minority, that he
would try to get amendments to the committee as quickly as
possible. But, if a bill packet is delayed, amendments could be
delayed as well because it takes a discrete amount of time to
decide what to do.
Number 0481
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied he understands and asked the committee
members to be as thoughtful as possible. He would call an at ease
in order to read an amendment received late so that everybody
understands the proposed changes.
Number 0514
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted last year the House Judiciary Committee
was impacted by the down times of the floor sessions which directly
impacted the House Labor and Commerce Committee and the House
Health, Education and Social Services Committee as well. The new
Speaker, however, has indicated that will not be a problem this
year.
Number 0607
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he, as chairman of the House
Labor and Commerce Committee, would be willing to meet extra days
in a week if there is a jam like last year.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied it would be looked at if needed.
Number 0731
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked the committee members to ensure the
nomenclature is clear so that the committee secretary knows who is
speaking.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced for the record that Representatives
Murkowski and Kerttula have joined the meeting.
Number 0773
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated last year the committee hearings did
not meet the expectations of the public. In other words, the
public does not understand when sitting at a Legislative
Information Office (LIO) why a committee is not coming to order.
There were several times when the message did not get to the public
notifying the delay last year. She hopes that the communication
will improve this year. She recognized that it is hard to keep
schedules going perfectly, but notifications can be made to prevent
too much waiting.
Number 0845
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied he would make sure that the committee aide
takes care of that concern. He further announced the committee
aide will be joining his office next Friday. His name is Cory
Winchell.
Number 0882
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Chairman Kott wither Mr. Winchell is
a member of the Alaska Bar Association.
CHAIRMAN KOTT replied he is trained.
Number 0892
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated given the breadth and size of the
public testimony in the House Judiciary Committee he suggested
announcing the number of testifiers to help the committee members
gage their questions accordingly.
Number 0980
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the communication between the LIO
and the committees last year was the worst. It was very confusing.
The printouts were not always available. She hopes that it will be
better this year.
Number 1008
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked the committee members to notify his office when
they are going to be absent. If there isn't going to be a quorum,
he would like to notify the LIOs that no action will be taken.
Secondly, if a committee member is out of town he can participate
via teleconference to adopt and amend a bill, but he cannot
participate to move a bill out of committee. He asked Pat Harman,
his legislative assistant, to clarify his statement.
Number 1060
PAT HARMAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Pete Kott,
Alaska State Legislature, explained a committee member can vote via
teleconference, except to move a bill out of committee. It is an
area of thin ice because there might not be a notice of a
teleconference site, but Tamara Cook, Director of Legislative Legal
and Research Services, assured him that it is a safe risk.
Number 1072
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested changing the Uniform Rules to
clarify the issue. There is dispute about committee members acting
on amendments when participating via teleconference.
CHAIRMAN KOTT agreed that it is not clear.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG further stated, according to his opinion,
a committee members is not allowed to participate on any action
before the committee if participating via teleconference.
Number 1103
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated, according to his understanding, a
committee member can vote on amendments or substitutes, but cannot
vote on moving a bill out of committee.
OVERVIEW OF ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business is a brief
overview of the Alaska Court System. He called on Chris
Christensen from the Office of the Administrative Director within
the Alaska Court System.
Number 1139
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Staff Counsel, Office of the Administrative
Director, Alaska Court System, explained the Framers of the U.S.
Constitution put together a system of government from becoming too
powerful to protect individual liberty. The Framers looked to the
writings of Montesquieu, an eighteenth century French political
philosopher. Montesquieu theorized that the best way to limit
government is to separate it into three powers: legislative,
judicial and executive. The Constitution of the State of Alaska
has the purest form of the separation of powers compared to any of
the 50 states. The people who put together the state constitution
were Democrats and Republicans, but a lot of them also had a very
distinct Libertarian bend, thereby ensuring a practice of effecting
individual liberty. There is also another entity of the government
in Alaska, the university, causing debate about its position within
the three-branch structure. The executive (87 percent of the state
operating budget) and university (11 percent of the state operating
budget) branches are very large, while the legislative and judicial
branches are very tiny (2 percent of the state operating budget).
The executive branch is headed by one person, while the legislative
branch has 60 officers, and the judicial branch has 57 officers
with individual powers founded in the state constitution.
Number 1301
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that more bills affect the court system than
any other entity. Any legislation relating to crime or civil
justice, for example, affects the court system in some way. The
Alaska Supreme Court does not take a position on legislation,
unless it directly affects internal administration. He noted,
however, that he will make technical suggestions regarding a piece
of legislation, but he will not take a position. Unlike the
executive branch, the judicial branch does not have veto power to
threaten the legislative branch with.
MR. CHRISTENSEN further explained that the court system is the
largest of the judicial branch. Alaska has a unified judicial
system, one of eight states. Alaska does not have city or county
courts, but rather state courts. Alaska is also one of five states
in which funding for its court system comes from only one source.
In most states, funding is split between several sources, such as
county government and/or dedicated funds. The benefit of the
Alaska system is that there is only one entity to bear
responsibility thereby preventing any "finger pointing" for blame.
Furthermore, the administrative director of the court system is a
constitutional officer similar to a strong city manager. The
administrative director is responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the court system.
Number 1445
MR. CHRISTENSEN further explained that there are about 59
courthouses throughout the state ranging from a single room over a
general store manned by a part-time magistrate to the supreme
court. The first court, the Alaska Supreme Court, has five members
and its headquarters is in Anchorage. It meets monthly in
Fairbanks and twice a year in Juneau to hear oral arguments. In
addition, the Alaska Supreme Court is not a writ court like the
U.S. Supreme Court. It cannot decide its load in a given year; it
has to hear everything which causes delays. In fact, this is a
feature of the entire court system.
MR. CHRISTENSEN further explained the second court, the Alaska
Court of Appeals, was created by the legislature in the early
1980's to take some of the case load away from the supreme court.
The legislature decided that a larger supreme court could hear more
cases, but it would be a lot less efficient. The court of appeals
consists of three members and its headquarters is in Anchorage. It
handles most of the criminal appeals for the state.
MR. CHRISTENSEN further explained the third court, the Alaska
Superior Court, consists of 32 superior court judges located around
the state. The big courts are in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer,
Kenai and Juneau in order of size. He noted that the tremendous
population growth in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and the Kenai
Peninsula has moved Palmer ahead of Kenai in order of size. As a
trial court, it has jurisdiction over felonies, domestic relation
matters, child protection matters and the juvenile justice system.
It is the court that constituents will complain about the most
because about 40 percent of its case load involves dissolution,
child custody, visitation, and/or child protection cases. The
court system is a service entity, but unlike other service entities
the customer is not always right.
MR. CHRISTENSEN further explained the fourth court, the Alaska
District Court, is comprised of two officers: district judges and
magistrates. District judges have jurisdiction over civil cases
under $50,000 in value and misdemeanors. Magistrates have
jurisdiction over small claims cases and infractions, such as
traffic tickets. Currently, there are 39 magistrates around the
state, most are in rural areas and many are local residents. In
many places the magistrate represents the only state presence in
the community.
Number 1699
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that last year the four levels of courts
heard approximately 150,000 cases. He illustrated that even though
the crime rate is down, the courts are seeing more work. For
example, the number of felony filings were up 7 percent statewide
last year. In Anchorage, they were up 13 percent. In Kenai, they
were up over 50 percent. Between FY95 and FY98 there has been a 28
percent increase in domestic violence cases, largely in part to the
changes made by the legislature two years ago to the domestic
violence statutes. It is now much easier to get a restraining
order. In addition, child cases and delinquency cases were up 14
percent last year. Misdemeanors are not up this year, but the
percentage of violent cases are up quite a bit - the cases that
require jury trials impacting the Department of Corrections as
well.
Number 1791
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Christensen, for clarification,
whether non-violent misdemeanors are way down.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied, "That's correct."
MR. CHRISTENSEN further explained that controversial decisions were
up about 150 percent last year.
MR. CHRISTENSEN further stated that in addition to the trial and
appellate courts there is the administrative arm of the judicial
branch. The administrative arm is responsible for microfilming,
personnel, procurement, and it is the repository of all court
records since statehood. There are approximately 700 employees in
the court system, of which, 100 or so are judicial officers.
Number 1835
MR. CHRISTENSEN further explained that there are two other entities
to the court system - the Alaska Commission on Judicial Conduct and
the Alaska Judicial Council. The commission is made up of nine:
three judges, three lawyers, and three public members. The council
is made up of four: three attorneys, the chief justice, and three
public members. The council studies the administration of justice,
collects name of applicants for judicial openings, and provides
information to voters when a judge is up for reelection.
Number 1950
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Christensen, for clarification,
whether last year the legislature changed the threshold for small
claims court.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied the legislature changed the threshold two
years ago. It went from $5,000 to $7,500. It also changed the
filing fee from $25 to $50.
Number 1974
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Christensen whether the changes
have had any impact.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied he didn't have the latest statistics, but
believes there might have been a small decrease. Right now,
Alaska has the second or third highest jurisdictional limit of any
small claims court in the country. A typical limit is between $500
and $3,000. Small claims court is very important for people who do
not have lawyers and/or have a little case. It is cheap for the
litigants, but it is very expensive for the state to operate. It
actually costs more to run a small claims court than it does to run
a district court because more assistance is provided and most all
cases actually go to court. He cited less than 5 percent of the
cases that make it to district court actually go to trial.
Number 2059
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the higher limits in Alaska for
small claims court and asked Mr. Christensen whether there is a
study of comparison in regards to rules of evidence, motion
practices, or participation of attorneys.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied he has not seen a study. He would contact
the National Center for State Courts to see if they had one,
however. In most states, small claims are handled by the municipal
or county court systems; therefore, most have their own rules.
Many states have strict restrictions on what can be heard in a
small claims court, such as landlord-tenant matters.
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Christensen whether Alaska could
have strict restrictions.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied he didn't know. It could cause problems.
He cited a story of an incarcerated individual in California suing
major corporations on the East Coast after buying a stock because
they prefer to settle for $3,000, the jurisdictional limit, rather
than send an attorney.
Number 2158
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated that he would like to look at the issue
further with Mr. Christensen. Most frustrations with the court
system revolve around resolving small disputes.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied the court system cannot make people happy
with results. The court system is concerned with fairness, taking
a problem seriously, and handling it expeditiously. In addition,
a detailed small claims court handbook is given to anyone who files
a case. It is also sent to the defendant(s). However, people
don't usually read it, according to the court clerks. He explained
the information is also being put out on the Internet including
interactive forms to improve services.
Number 2222
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the threshold increase of $7,500
and asked Mr. Christensen whether there is merit in requiring
mediation before taking a case to small claims court.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied the court system would love anything that
would release some of its burden. In statute the state is required
to notify litigants of alternative dispute resolutions. There are
two problems with mediation: the adversarial mind set upon filing
a complaint and the cost.
Number 2287
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the court system as the
repository of all state records and asked Mr. Christensen whether
that includes legislative archives as well.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied no. He meant only court records. It is
important to keep records in the event of a writ of habeas corpus.
Number 2314
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he is concerned about the way
the legislature keeps its archival history in reference to
legislative intent. He asked Mr. Christensen to comment on the
availability of the court system to look back at legislative
intent.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied the supreme court adopted a rule years ago
saying that legislative intent is always relevant, especially when
the language is confusing. If the language is crystal clear then
not much attention is paid to intent. He called it a sliding
scale. There have been problems, especially in the 1970's when
records were not kept, but it has improved since then.
Number 2403
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the legislature should take a
serious look at the issue of maintaining records as a matter for
history.
Number 2446
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to the court of appeals and asked Mr.
Christensen whether they move around the state or are stationary in
Anchorage.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied they are stationary in Anchorage because
the Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, and the Public
Defenders Office, which handles 85 percent of the appeals, are
located there. The supreme court goes to Fairbanks and Juneau to
make it easier for private attorneys and civil litigants, but there
is no compelling reason to move around the state for criminal
cases. It is actually easier and cheaper to do it all in
Anchorage.
Number 2446
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Christensen whether the court of appeals is
obligated to hear all of the filed appeals.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied they are obligated to take any criminal
appeal from the supreme court. At the district court level a
misdemeanant can choose which court to appeal to - the superior
court or court of appeals. If it goes to the court of appeals, it
is obligated to hear the case. If it goes to the superior court
and is appealed again to the court of appeals, it is not obligated
to hear the case.
Number 2475
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Christensen whether the court
system has been involved in designing the new jail in Anchorage,
especially in reference to electronic arraignments.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied representatives of the court system
regularly attend the design meetings.
TAPE 99-2, SIDE B
Number 0000
MR. CHRISTENSEN continued. He believes that an actual courtroom
will be in the new facility along with a magistrate for cases that
cannot be done electronically.
Number 0014
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he recently visited the Cook
Inlet Pre-Trial Facility with his grandson and noticed that the
facilities for meetings between clients and attorneys were poor or
nonexistent.
Number 0031
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the aforementioned small claims
court discussion and asked Mr. Christensen whether there is an
internal procedure or requirement for a settlement conference used
in larger cases.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied he has not heard of that, probably because
most small claims trials are short.
Number 0067
REPRESENTATIVE CROFT complimented the court system for its
involvement in Youth Court and Mr. Christensen personally.
Number 0076
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied Youth Court has been a valuable operation
helping reduce the rate of recidivism, but it does not have a lot
of funding. The court system has given it space for free or actual
cost to continue the program.
Number 0119
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to the problems surrounding the year 2000
(Y2K) and asked Mr. Christensen what impact it will have on the
court system and what is it doing to correct the situation.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied the court system was the last governmental
entity to computerize. Therefore, it has been replacing original
equipment with new equipment that is Y2K compatible rather than
having to update existing equipment. Last year, the court system
submitted a request for $200,000 that solves all of the problems
for the court system.
Number 0173
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to separation of powers and
prisoners' right then asked Mr. Christensen to comment on judicial
decisions that effectively become law, the purview of the
legislature.
MR. CHRISTENSEN replied the United States operates under the
principles of English Common Law, and under that law the
legislature is the primary source of law. However, judicial
decisions interpreting laws do have the effect of law. This has
been a problem mainly in the civil area because it involves private
litigants who tend to settle rather then go to the expense of a
supreme court case. The last round of tort reform, before the bill
that passed a year or two ago, had been through at least 12
different superior court judges and were split down the middle, but
no one ever appealed it to the supreme court for a final ruling.
The issue is an inherent part of the system and not much can be
done about it. The legislature can, however, fix conflicting
decisions that are not being appealed at a lower level of court.
The supreme court, nonetheless, is the final authority on the
constitution.
Number 0314
CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Mr. Christensen on behalf of the committee
members for his presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that Mr. Christensen is a "fountain of
knowledge" and encouraged the committee members to refer to him for
questions.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0365
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|