HB 298-NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES  8:02:31 8:02:10 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 298, "An Act relating to the number of superior court judges in the first judicial district; and providing for an effective date." 8:02:49 AM NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Offices, Alaska Court System, testified during the hearing on HB 298, on behalf of the House Rules Committee, sponsor by request of the Alaska Court System. She stated that HB 298 would increase the number of Alaska Superior Court judges by one, and that increase would be in the First Judicial Court District, in Southeast Alaska. The bill carries a zero fiscal note. This statutory change is being proposed by the court system and is an administrative matter. She noted that the last time the court brought forth a request to the legislature was in 2011, when two seats were added to the Anchorage Judicial Court District, bringing the total number at that time from 40 to 42. She explained that AS 22.10.120 sets the number of Alaska Superior Court judges and requires the Alaska Court System to get legislative authorization to increase the number; this is mandated under Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. She said the same is not true for district court judges, a fact she said would become relevant as she explains the court's desired outcome under HB 298. 8:05:05 AM MS. MEADE said the chief justice, in his state of the judiciary speech, had expressed that the Juneau Superior Court is overburdened with casework relative to the number of superior court judges, and it has been this way for many years. It has the second-highest number of superior court case filings per superior court judge in the state; the highest is Anchorage. She said in some ways it is not a fair comparison because Anchorage has many other resources and is set up differently, such that Anchorage does not need another superior court judge. Because of Juneau's paucity of judges, she explained, the Juneau Superior Court may not be able to schedule hearings as quickly and written work does not get done in a timely manner. She said the court has recognized this for some time: in 2014 and again in 2015, the court had a capital budget request for an extra courtroom in the Dimond Court House in Juneau, but that was not funded. A request was made in 2016 for additional rooms but was not funded. Having the extra rooms would have at least allowed a visiting judge to hold hearings at the same time as the sitting judges were holding hearings. As a result, the Juneau caseload has been redistributed. Specifically, the presiding judge of the First Judicial Court District, who lives and works in Ketchikan, has been traveling to Juneau to help alleviate the case backlog. To lighten the load on his Juneau colleagues, this judge has been taking on approximately one-third of the Juneau civil cases, all the administrative agency appeals brought to the Juneau Superior Court, and periodic big criminal trials. She said he has been doing this for several years, which means he has been working unsustainable hours for that time. She said it is not a model that the court wants to continue; therefore, it has been looking for a better solution. 8:08:00 AM MS. MEADE noted a solution may have presented itself because of lucky timing. She explained that a district court judge in Juneau has announced retirement this summer, so the Juneau Supreme Court wants to convert that seat into a Juneau Superior Court seat. She reviewed that superior court judges are judges of general jurisdiction while district court judges have limited jurisdiction. She noted that typically, superior court judges handle felonies, domestic relations, probate matters, and civil cases in which the amount of controversy is over $100,000. She then listed that which district court judges handle. Currently, Juneau has two superior and two district court judges. Converting the one district court seat to a superior court seat can be done with nearly no fiscal impact, because the same office, computer, and supplies can be used, as well as existing judicial assistance and resources. She said the only difference in cost is the difference in salary, which would be approximately $35,500, which would be absorbed by the court system via attrition and savings the court has achieved in other areas. For example, there are unfilled positions in a long-term vacancy pool, the savings from which can be used to address the wage difference. 8:11:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS indicated that he learned from the judicial address given the day before and is impressed with the court system's focus on frugality and efficiency. He expressed support for HB 298. He asked if it would make sense in the future to request the clerks for this proposed new superior court judge. MS. MEADE said she has heard this concern before. She explained that the new judge would share the judicial assistants and two law clerks presently in the Juneau Superior Court, and "everyone thinks that that will be a fine solution and will work out well," because the addition of a judge will bring down the filings significantly, and two law clerks are considered sufficient to handle that caseload. She said the court's plan is not to come back to make the request outlined by Representative Kreiss-Tomkins. If the court does need an additional law clerk, it would seek to address that need by moving positions around within the court system. She said she cannot promise the request would never be made of the legislature, but at this point there is no plan to ask in the future. She offered other examples to show that sharing law clerks is not uncommon. 8:13:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how much savings has been seen from "that 5 percent reduction in employees" and how much of that savings would be taken up by the swapping out of one district court judge to gain one superior court judge. MS. MEADE answered that the court system has lost 11 percent of its work force, several of which have been from the First Judicial Court District. She said 45 positions have been eliminated and there are about 32 positions in the long-term vacancy pool. She said she does not know what the actual cost savings is, but she said she knows one unfilled assistant to an administrator position brought a savings to the court of approximately $70,000, including benefits. The proposed reclassification of the judge is only half that amount. In response to Representative Saddler, she said she would provide the requested total to the committee. 8:15:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked if the caseload has diminished, increased, or stayed about the same. MS. MEADE answered that the caseloads fluctuate but have not changed significantly. She offered examples. In response to a follow-up question, she related that in some instances, but not others, cases are taking longer to process. She added, "Yes, it can be a little bit slower when you have more case filings and more work to do per person." 8:17:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned why the remaining district court judge would not be overwhelmed. MS. MEADE offered that there is another position, which is the magistrate judge, and that judge currently is doing a lot of preparatory work for the two Juneau Superior Court judges. If HB 298 passes, that magistrate judge would take on more district court work addressing minor offenses. Further, she said superior court judges can handle district court matters. She said this caseload distribution would be coordinated. She noted that this one district court judge and two superior court judge combination is the current model in Kenai, Alaska, which has nearly identical case filing numbers. In response to a follow- up question, she said if Juneau gets the three superior court judges, all three would be doing some district court work. She said no additional training will be necessary for the magistrate judge to do the necessary work. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said, "I'm wondering how you're spinning gold out of straw here." He said he wants to make sure there is no work left uncovered. MS. MEADE responded that there would be the same number of cases with people who can do more to handle the right types of cases. She added, "And if that one judge could handle some of their work instead, that would alleviate the pressure, and it will also alleviate the traveling judge having to come up here, and it will change what the ... magistrate judge focuses most of his time on." In response to a follow-up question, she said the court has no plans to ask for further judge changes or additional magistrates. She said the court is "always moving people around," but it is only for the superior court judge that the court needs the authorization from the legislature. 8:22:20 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH opened public testimony on HB 298. After ascertaining that there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public testimony. CO-CHAIR PARISH stated that because HB 298 is "rather uncontroversial," has a zero fiscal note, and is going to be heard by another committee of referral, he would entertain a motion to move it out of committee. 8:23:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN moved to report HB 298 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. 8:23:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO objected for the purpose of discussion. He said Ms. Meade's presentation of the proposed legislation was one of the better ones he has heard. He said after hearing the aforementioned address yesterday and Ms. Meade's testimony today, he thinks HB 298 is noncontroversial and probably will solve huge issues in the First Judicial Court District. REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO removed his objection. 8:24:04 AM CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that there being no further objection, HB 298 was reported out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.