Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
01/23/2013 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Alaska Court System | |
| Overview(s): Office of Public Advocacy | |
| Overview(s): Public Defender Agency | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 23, 2013
1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
Representative Wes Keller, Chair
Representative Bob Lynn, Vice Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Max Gruenberg
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator John Coghill, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Donald Olson
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE JUDICIARY
All Members Present
SENATE JUDICIARY
Senator Lesil McGuire, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): ALASKA COURT SYSTEM
- HEARD
OVERVIEW(S): OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY
- HEARD
OVERVIEW(S): PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel
Administrative Staff
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System (ACS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the overview of the Alaska Court
System (ACS).
RICHARD ALLEN, Director
Anchorage Office
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the overview of the Office of
Public Advocacy (OPA).
QUINLAN STEINER, Director
Central Office
Public Defender Agency (PDA)
Department of Administration (DOA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the overview of the Public
Defender Agency (PDA).
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:34:36 PM
CHAIR WES KELLER called the joint meeting of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee and Senate Judiciary Standing Committee to
order at 1:34 p.m. Present at the call to order from the House
Judiciary Standing Committee were Representatives Keller,
Gruenberg, Foster, LeDoux, Lynn, Millett, and Pruitt. Present
from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee were Senators
Coghill, Dyson, Olson, and Wielechowski.
^Overview(s): Alaska Court System
Overview(s): Alaska Court System
1:35:51 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be an overview of the Alaska Court System (ACS).
1:36:43 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS),
explained that in Alaska, the judicial branch - often seen as
the face of state government because of its daily interaction
with the public - represents 1.4-1.5 percent of the state's
operating budget and has approximately 800 employees working in
43 different court locations. As a government entity, the ACS
addresses its administrative matters - for example, human
resources, information technology, facilities, fiscal
operations, procurements, lease arrangements, [to name a few] -
internally, via various sections and [specialized] staff.
Differing from most other states, Alaska has what is referred to
as a unified judiciary - meaning that all of the courts are
administered centrally by one administrative office, currently
located in Anchorage; the ACS's funding comes entirely from the
legislature via appropriations from the general fund (GF); and
the day-to-day operations are addressed by an administrative
director hired by the Alaska Supreme Court. The ACS's
organizational structure, as well as the powers and duties of
the judiciary, is set out in the Alaska State Constitution,
which also stipulates that judicial districts shall be
established.
MS. MEADE referred to a handout in members' packets illustrating
a map of the state's four judicial districts, and explained that
each of these districts has one presiding judge appointed by the
chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court for a two-year term;
that the First Judicial District "is mainly Southeast"; that the
Second Judicial District "is the North Slope, including Barrow,
Kotzebue, and Nome"; that the Third Judicial District "is
Southcentral - that has our biggest and busiest state courts,
Anchorage, Palmer, and Kenai, as well as others"; and that the
Fourth Judicial District "is the Interior, kind of swathing
southwest, including Fairbanks and the Bethel regions." There
are also four levels of court: the Alaska Supreme Court, the
Alaska Court of Appeals, the Alaska Superior Court, and Alaska's
district courts, with the former two levels comprising the
state's appellate courts, which review decisions of the trial
courts, and the latter two levels comprising the state's trial
courts, which initially hear and decide cases. The jurisdiction
and responsibilities of all of Alaska's courts are set out in
both the Alaska State Constitution and Title 22.
1:41:27 PM
MS. MEADE explained that the Alaska Supreme Court has five
justices; hears all cases "that are appealed to it" - in fiscal
year 2012 (FY 12), for example, 427 cases were filed with the
Alaska Supreme Court; and hears oral arguments about once a
month in Anchorage, quarterly in Juneau and Fairbanks, and, as
part of an educational outreach program begun in 2010, at other
times in various high schools throughout the state. In
accordance with the Alaska State Constitution, the five justices
of the Alaska Supreme Court select one of their members to serve
as chief justice for three years, and that person serves as the
administrative head of the ACS. She mentioned that to fill an
anticipated upcoming vacancy, the governor would be appointing a
new justice to serve on the Alaska Supreme Court this upcoming
Friday.
MS. MEADE explained that the Alaska Court of Appeals has three
judges, and hears appeals arising from criminal matters and
quasi-criminal matters, and from matters related to such. The
Alaska Superior Court has 42 judges and 13 locations; is the
trial court of general jurisdiction, meaning that it has
original jurisdiction over both civil and criminal matters; and
its judges sometimes travel to other locations on a temporary
basis as case-needs arise. Nearly all Alaska Superior Court
judges handle all case types, though the one notable exception
is that in Anchorage, for administrative purposes and to
increase efficiency, the judges have [divided the workload
according to case type]: five judges address only felony
criminal cases, and the other twelve judges address only civil
matters - that is, the non-criminal cases. Alaska's district
court has 23 judges covering 30 communities, and is the court of
limited jurisdiction, meaning that those judges can hear certain
types of cases as outlined in statute.
MS. MEADE referred to a handout in members packets titled,
"FY 11 FILINGS STATEWIDE" containing three pie charts
illustrating the percentages of the different types of cases
filed in superior court, filed in district court, and filed in
both courts combined. The biggest single type of case filed, at
over 80,000 cases in district court, involved minor offenses -
violations, infractions, and what she termed non-jail-able
offenses - and the number of such cases, she relayed, is
constantly growing. Improving the ACS's efficiency in
addressing such cases is therefore very important to the overall
functioning of the ACS, and to that end, the ACS - in
cooperation with the Department of Public Safety DPS) and local
law enforcement agencies around the state - has instituted a
system of filing and processing the citations associated with
such cases electronically. The Alaska Superior Court, in
addition to addressing felony cases, also addresses cases
involving domestic relations, including child custody and
paternity determinations, and dissolutions and divorces; cases
involving probate, including guardianships and conservatorships,
and mental health and other commitments; and civil cases wherein
the amount at issue is over $100,000.
1:50:00 PM
MS. MEADE, in response to questions and comments, offered her
understanding that over 90 percent of criminal cases do get
"pled out"; that accepting such plea agreements has been a long-
standing practice and is in some ways necessary to keep the
criminal justice system working; and that the ACS is currently
researching the issue of how best and most efficiently to use
magistrates, judges, and masters. Returning to her overview of
the ACS, Ms. Meade explained that at the district-court level,
in addition to the aforementioned 23 judges, there are 44
magistrates; these magistrates - hired and fired as regular
employees of the court - address many of the minor-offense cases
that come before the court, and greatly aid in the ACS's
efficiency. Some trends that the ACS is aware of are that the
number of cases has been steadily growing at a rate of about 5
percent per year, with the [two] fastest-growing types of cases
being those related to probate and those related to domestic
violence (DV).
MS. MEADE, in response to further questions, relayed that the
two new superior-court-judge positions added to the Third
Judicial District for Anchorage have just recently been
permanently filled, and, as a result, the ACS expects the
caseload in Anchorage to become more manageable; agreed to
research whether past changes to the statutes pertaining to
estate planning have increased the ACS's caseload; and agreed to
compile statistics about felony cases involving small amounts of
controlled substances. Returning again to her overview of the
ACS, Ms. Meade explained that the courts operate under the
Alaska Rules of Court, and that the Alaska State Constitution
gives the Alaska Supreme Court the ultimate authority to
establish those rules, and the court does so via a committee
process, with specific committees addressing the various types
of rules. The Alaska Rules of Court can also be changed by the
legislature, both directly and indirectly, with direct court
rule changes requiring an affirmative two-thirds vote of each
body of the legislature. Ms. Meade went on to explain that
legislation impacting other departments/agencies of the state,
particularly those that together with the ACS comprise Alaska's
justice system, also impact the ACS's workload, for example,
when judges are called upon to interpret and apply statute, or
when legislation increases other department/agency caseloads.
2:06:24 PM
MS. MEADE then relayed that the ACS generally takes no position
on the merits of legislation and would only express support or
opposition for a particular piece of legislation if it directly
impacts the structure of the judicial branch. Instead, for most
legislation, [the ACS] can provide information about the
legislation's fiscal impact, any technical or implementation
problems with the legislation, or possibly more efficient or
less costly alternatives to achieving the legislation's
objective. The key reasons the ACS rarely takes a position on
legislation are: one, the ACS recognizes that it's the
legislature's role, not the court's, to set public policy in
Alaska - to consider the will of the people and adopt and revise
statutes to reflect that will; two, the court may very well be
called upon to interpret legislation or respond to future
constitutional challenges to legislation, and the court's
objectivity could be called into question if it had previously
provided an official position on the legislation; and, three,
individual judges often disagree on the merits of legislation,
and thus there is no "judicial position" or ACS-recommended
stance on the policy expressed in a particular piece of
legislation, and it would be inappropriate and possibly
misleading to testify otherwise.
MS. MEADE relayed that the justice agencies in Alaska work very
well together, both formally and informally, to the benefit of
the entire justice system; that the aforementioned ACS
committees addressing the Alaska Rules of Court nearly all have
representatives from the executive branch; and that the ACS is a
member of both the Criminal Justice Working Group (CJWG) -
addressing system-wide efficiencies and operational improvements
- and the Multi-Agency Justice Integration Consortium (MAJIC) -
addressing technology-related issues. In conclusion, she
emphasized that it's important to bear in mind that legislative
decisions impacting one agency in the justice system also impact
all the others. In response to questions, she confirmed that
providing restitution to victims is given the highest priority
by the ACS; pointed out that the ACS doesn't get to choose who
it serves but must instead accept every case filing; and
explained that every citizen has the right to file a case
against whomever he/she wishes regardless of the particular
merits to the case, and that the ACS does its best to assist
those who seek to represent themselves, and to that end has
established a self-help center for those seeking to represent
themselves in family-law cases, for example.
^Overview(s): Office of Public Advocacy
Overview(s): Office of Public Advocacy
2:18:17 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
an overview of the [Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)].
The committee took an at-ease from 2:19 p.m. to 2:21 p.m.
2:21:43 PM
RICHARD ALLEN, Director, Anchorage Office, Office of Public
Advocacy (OPA), Department of Administration (DOA), referring to
a PowerPoint presentation, explained that the mission of the OPA
is to provide legal advocacy and guardianship services to
vulnerable Alaskans; specifically, the OPA provides:
guardianship and conservatorship services to incapacitated
individuals, guardian ad litem (GAL) services to
abused/neglected children, representation to elderly victims of
fraud and abuse, attorney services for parents in child in need
of aid (CINA) cases, representation in cases received from the
Public Defender Agency (PDA) due to a conflict of interest,
respondent representation in guardianship proceedings, and court
visitor services in guardianship and conservatorship
proceedings. The OPA currently has offices in Anchorage,
Juneau, Fairbanks, Palmer, and Bethel; has 14 distinct units;
has 47 attorneys and 78 staff - including the public guardians;
and, to provide services in areas of the state that currently
don't have an OPA office, contracts with both private attorneys
and private GALs.
MR. ALLEN, still referring to his PowerPoint presentation,
indicated that the OPA's fiscal year 2012 (FY 12) public
guardian receipts [totaled $652,950, with] $607,000 authorized
for use, and that what he called the FY 13 management plan
totaled $24,862,900. Some of the OPA's recent accomplishments,
he relayed, include: keeping private contractors' costs level,
thereby providing a bit of what he termed, "budgetary
certainty," since - similar to the Alaska Court System (ACS),
the PDA, [and the Department of Corrections (DOC)] - the OPA
cannot turn down clients sent to it and so utilizes such
contractors quite a bit; keeping more cases in-house; creating a
new unit - [Anchorage Conflict Counsel] - without requesting any
additional positions; challenging improper court appointments;
and educating those in the judiciary branch of government
regarding what constitutes a proper OPA appointment as outlined
in the OPA's enabling statutes.
MR. ALLEN, in response to questions, explained that the OPA
provides representation to indigent victims of elder fraud/abuse
via its office of elder fraud and assistance, which was
statutorily created [in 2006]; that should the OPA succeed in
restoring stolen funds to a victim of elder fraud such that
he/she is no longer indigent, the OPA does charge him/her fees
for the services provided; and that when one of its clients is
the victim of elder abuse stemming from provider fraud, the OPA
works closely with the Department of Law (DOL) and the
Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) to address that
type of criminal activity.
2:33:41 PM
MR. ALLEN, returning to his overview of the OPA, explained that
to keep private contractor costs down as much as possible, the
OPA has taken several steps to keep more cases in-house, which,
again, provides for more budgetary certainty; that the
aforementioned new unit has thus far, over the last 11 months,
handled over 600 cases, with over 300 of those cases involving
felony crimes; that prior to the establishment of that new unit,
all 600 of those cases would have been assigned to private
contractors; that this change alone resulted in the state saving
hundreds of thousands of dollars; and that both the growth of
the OPA's contractor costs and those costs themselves are
currently being reduced. However, in terms of challenges, the
OPA's caseload pertaining to public guardians continues to
increase, and this isn't going to change given that Alaska's
population is continuing to age; [due to a variety of factors,]
the caseload in the OPA's Bethel Office is significantly higher
per attorney/staff than in any of the OPA's other offices, and
the number of its cases continues to rise; and the number of
[what's being termed, "Flores" cases, from Flores v. Flores, 598
P.2d 893 (1979)], is also increasing due to a December 2011
Alaska Supreme Court ruling stipulating that the OPA shall
represent an indigent party in a child custody case if the other
party is represented by a public agency.
MR. ALLEN referred to a chart on page 9 of his PowerPoint
presentation illustrating that the number of OPA clients
requiring a public guardian is continuing to increase, and
relayed that current OPA efficiency initiatives include working
with the Criminal Justice Working Group (CJWG) regarding
"electronic discovery," adding staff in locations with
increasing caseloads, [addressing statutory definitions
pertaining to the OPA,] and implementing what he termed an "SEM
data system" for public guardian trust activities. In
conclusion, Mr. Allen indicated that another step to reduce the
OPA's costs involves the creation/expansion of a public guardian
volunteer program, similar to the OPA's existing court-appointed
special advocate (CASA) program.
^Overview(s): Public Defender Agency
Overview(s): Public Defender Agency
2:43:49 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the last order of business would be
an overview of the Public Defender Agency (PDA).
2:44:07 PM
QUINLAN STEINER, Director, Central Office, Public Defender
Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), explained that
the PDA, created in 1969, has a constitutional mandate to
provide legal representation to indigent clients in certain
types of cases - [criminal cases, juvenile delinquency cases,
child in need of aid (CINA) cases, and involuntary commitment
matters]; however, the PDA only takes those cases appointed to
it by the court after the court makes a finding of indigency.
Primarily, the PDA's functions are to review charges, review
cases, communicate to clients their rights, and represent
clients in all of Alaska's courts. The PDA is required to
attempt to withdraw from cases that aren't clearly authorized,
though, and so will move to do so in those rare situations
wherein the court [incorrectly] appoints the PDA. In response
to a question regarding conflict of interest, he mentioned that
in situations in which the PDA is appointed to represent
multiple co-defendants in a criminal case, as a matter of
policy, the PDA would move to withdraw from all but one of the
co-defendants, though it wouldn't do so in cases involving minor
in possession crimes because most of the time, in such cases,
there isn't really an actual conflict of interest. The Office
of Public Advocacy (OPA) handles all cases in which the PDA has
a conflict of interest, and this occurs in about 12-12.5 percent
of the cases that the PDA has been appointed to.
MR. STEINER, returning to his overview of the PDA, explained
that the PDA has four internal divisions - the Criminal
Division, the Civil Division, the Appellate Division, and the
Administrative Section; maintains 13 offices - located in
Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Palmer, Kenai, Ketchikan, Sitka,
Bethel, Nome, Kotzebue, Dillingham, Kodiak, and Barrow; employs
173 attorneys, investigators, paralegals, and support staff; and
has a fiscal year 2013 (FY 13) management plan budget of
$25.5 million, including what he termed a "caseload increment"
of $950,000. In response to questions, he relayed that the
PDA's caseload is continuing to increase, and, as a consequence,
so too is the weighted average caseload per attorney - currently
up to about 147 cases - and that the PDA's efforts to address
recruitment, training, and mentoring have positively impacted
the PDA's turnover rate.
2:58:10 PM
MR. STEINER - again returning to his overview of the PDA, and
referring to a PowerPoint presentation - relayed that the graph
on page 19 represents the historical growth of the PDA's budget
in terms of authorized funding, caseload increment funding, and
supplemental funding; that for FY 13, no supplemental budget
request would be forthcoming, due to an increase in the PDA's
vacancy rate and what he termed "supplemental assistance"
extended by the DOA; and that the graph on page 20 of his
PowerPoint presentation illustrates the PDA's caseload growth
since FY 09: total caseload increased 16 percent, misdemeanor
caseload increased 7 percent, felony caseload increased 10
percent, and [what's been termed] "other" caseload increased 29
percent, with the latter type of caseload including cases
involving petitions to revoke probation - cases which result in
significant increases in the number of clients, the number of
client contacts, and the time spent communicating with each
client. He added that in an effort to reduce the number of what
he termed, "conflicts," the PDA now archives its files off site
with a third party, thereby limiting access to the PDA's closed
files.
MR. STEINER referred to a graph on page 22 of his PowerPoint
presentation measuring the PDA's performance during FY 10
through FY 12 with regard to contacting clients and opening
appeal briefs, posited that prompt client contact results in
earlier disposal of cases as well as in more appropriate
outcomes, and explained that the low figures regarding opening
appeal briefs is a function of the PDA's enormous backlog of
appellate matters. In conclusion, he indicated that the PDA has
been working with the Criminal Justice Working Group (CJWG)
regarding "electronic discovery," which will enable the PDA to
process its cases sooner; that the PDA does redeploy its
resources in order to address [excessive] caseloads; and that
[among other things,] the PDA's cost-containment measures
include in-house training, reviewing requests for travel and
requests for expert witnesses, and archiving more of its files
electronically.
3:05:11 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committees, the joint
meeting of the House Judiciary Standing Committee and the Senate
Judiciary Standing Committee was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AK Court System 2011 Statistical Report.pdf |
SJUD 1/23/2013 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Alaska Court Locations.pdf |
SJUD 1/23/2013 1:30:00 PM |
|
| FY11 Case Filings- Superior & District Courts.pdf |
SJUD 1/23/2013 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Office of Public Advocacy Overview.pdf |
SJUD 1/23/2013 1:30:00 PM |