Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/24/2023 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 | |
| HB39 || HB41 | |
| Fy 24 Budget Overview: Department of Law | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making reappropriations; making
supplemental appropriations; making appropriations
under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State
of Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve
fund; and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"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."
1:33:35 PM
^FY 24 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1:33:39 PM
TREG TAYLOR, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
introduced himself. He provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled "Department of Law: Department Overview," dated
February 24, 2023 (copy on file). He began on slide 2 with
an overview of the department's management team. He
reviewed the mission of the department on slide 3 to
provide legal services to state government and prosecute
crime for the protection and benefit of Alaska's citizens.
He advanced to slide 4 titled "Operating Budget Comparison:
Department of Law: FY2022 FY2024." The department's
operating budget was flat. He noted the small decrease from
FY 23 management plan to the FY 24 governor's request was
the difference in the multiyear statehood defense funds.
The department was not asking for the funds in FY 24.
1:35:48 PM
Representative Josephson referenced Attorney General
Taylor's statement that the department was not asking for
anything in FY 24. He thought there had been a request for
FY 24. He considered that perhaps the funding was going to
the governor's office instead of the Department of Law
(DOL).
Attorney General Taylor agreed. The funding was not
reflected in the DOL budget. He explained it was a
reflection of the realization that statehood defense began
much earlier than litigation. He elaborated it would give
the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), and Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) the ability to prepare for the litigation
coming down the road by conducting the correct science or
whatever else needed to be done. The governor's office
would distribute the funds to the departments as necessary.
Representative Hannan referenced a couple of the current
statehood defense cases that had been discussed in the
press. She asked where the funds had been included for the
abortion pill litigation and the tribal land and trust
litigation. She asked if the funds were housed in an agency
in order for research to be done or within DOL.
Attorney General Taylor replied that unfortunately the
abortion pill issue had been misreported and the state was
not involved in litigation. He informed committee members
that DOL had joined an amicus brief that pointed out
statehood rights in relation to the issues prevalent in the
specific litigation and supported that each state should
have the ability to decide on the rules. He clarified that
it did not seek to change the rules in Alaska and the
state's involvement defended the rules set up in Alaska. He
relayed that [the abortion pill litigation] was not part of
the statehood defense budget.
Representative Hannan requested a copy of the amicus brief.
She remarked that the issue had been reported in the press
very differently.
Attorney General Taylor agreed to provide the document to
the committee.
Co-Chair Johnson asked for clarification on the request.
Attorney General Taylor clarified Representative Hannan's
request for a copy of the amicus the state had signed onto
in support of Texas' litigation.
Co-Chair Johnson asked for the information to be sent to
her office for distribution to the committee.
Representative Hannan asked if the funding for the tribal
land and trust litigation was funded through statehood
defense via DNR, the governor's office, or DOL.
1:39:32 PM
Attorney General Taylor responded that the item was not
part of the statehood defense funds. He asked Ms. Cori
Mills for verification that his answer was accurate.
CORI MILLS, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, agreed.
Representative Hannan asked where the tribal land and trust
litigation was funded.
Ms. Mills confirmed that the litigation was being handled
through funds appropriated to DOL's general fund. She was
not sure which component it fell under because the
Appellate Section was doing much of the work.
Co-Chair Johnson asked if Representative Hannan was
referring to the amicus brief related to Texas
[litigation]. Alternatively, she wondered if Representative
Hannan was referring to something else.
Representative Hannan clarified it was a separate case. She
had asked about a filing on a piece of property in downtown
Juneau transferred to the Tlingit and Haida Tribe Central
Council. She elaborated that DOL had filed litigation to
the [U.S.] Department of Interior about clarifying
transfers of land into trust.
Attorney General Taylor clarified that neither of the cases
were funded through the statehood defense funds.
1:41:14 PM
Attorney General Taylor discussed the FY 23 management plan
budgeted versus filled permanent full-time positions by
division on slide 5. The chart showed positions broken out
by the department's various divisions. He noted that
recruitment and retention was one of the department's
highest priorities since he had taken the helm. He stated
that the department had a great plan and was seeing the
fruits of the plan. He believed DOL was in the best
position in recruitment and retention since his arrival at
the department four years prior. The presentation included
additional details on the topic later on.
1:42:17 PM
Ms. Mills discussed the core services of the Civil Division
on slide 6. She addressed recruitment and retention and
reported that one year ago there had been about 24 open
attorney positions within the division. The gap had been
greatly reduced and the number of vacant attorney positions
was down to four. The division was currently recruiting for
eight vacant paralegal and law office assistant positions.
She noted the number was better than it had been the
previous year. She elaborated that the division had been
having chronic problems with its law office assistants the
previous year. She detailed that the division had undergone
a class study for the law office assistant position that
enabled the department to have a promotional track for the
position and to make the salary more commensurate with
other similar positions. Consequently, the division was
seeing a reduction in agencies across the board.
Ms. Mills reported that the increase in pay from HB 226
[legislation passed in 2022] had helped. The department had
also been working on a promotional track for attorneys.
Additionally, the division had increased its training
opportunities and had created a Professional Development
and Public Services Section to oversee professional
development and conduct monthly training to enable
attorneys to fulfill their legal continued education
credits and to teach agency attorney skills. She noted that
the division had seen a turnover of close to 90 percent in
the past decade. She believed the skills and training had
boosted recruitment and retention and had created a deeper
bench of experience within the department.
Ms. Mills discussed the core services provided by the Civil
Division on slide 6. She explained that the Civil Division
provided legal services to state government. She read the
division's core services listed on the slide:
To protect Alaskans' safety and financial well-being,
foster conditions for responsible development of our
natural resources, protect the fiscal integrity of the
State, and promote good governance.
1:45:50 PM
Ms. Mills turned to the proposed restructuring of the Civil
Division on slide 7. The division's budget had been reduced
from 15 components to five in order to increase
transparency and help with the division's administrative
burden that had lacked flexibility in terms of how to
structure its sections over time. The five sections
included: legal support services, statehood defense and
resource development, protective legal services, government
services, and torts and other civil defense litigation.
Ms. Mills skipped slide 8 and briefly highlighted an
organizational chart on slide 9. She reviewed each of the
division's sections beginning with statehood defense and
resource development on slide 10. The section covered the
department's advice to the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG), DNR, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT), and DEC.
Representative Galvin asked why oil and gas would not be
under DNR.
Ms. Mills replied that it had gone back in forth. She
explained that there had been a separate section or team
[for oil and gas] and it had also been outside of DOL. The
work performed by the oil and gas team was for DNR and the
Department of Revenue (DOR). The section did all of the tax
and royalty work for the state, which required specific
expertise and was different than project permitting and the
mining arena that was done by the natural resources group
and represented the other half of the work for DNR. She
explained that the sections did not all fit neatly within
one department because of the broad range of the work
conducted by departments and DOL tried to group by the type
of work. She elaborated that DOL's natural resources
section covered DFG and DNR, including mining, project
permitting, state historic preservation, and the Forestry
Division. The Transportation Section covered everything
done by DOT. The Environmental Section did all of the work
for DEC including dealing with hazardous waste discharge,
contaminated sites, clean up and recovery costs,
enforcement actions (e.g., for violations of clean air
regulations), and Clean Water Act issues.
1:49:47 PM
Representative Hannan looked at the organizational chart on
slide 9. She referenced a governor's budget request for an
attorney for parental rights litigation. She stated her
understanding that the position would be housed in consumer
protection. She asked where it would appear in the
organizational chart.
Ms. Mills believed the [proposed] position was currently in
the budget under the legal support services component, but
she did not believe the location was accurate. The Consumer
Protection Section fell under the government services
component, which also included education attorneys. She
stated the department was still trying to determine whether
the position should be housed with the education attorneys
or consumer protection. The purpose of the position was to
allow a specific position to receive complaints from the
public, a parent, or through the Department of Education
and Early Development (DEED). She reported that DOL was
currently receiving requests from DEED about twice a week
for information relating to parental rights and what the
law said and whether a school district was in compliance.
The idea was to have a specific position to deal with the
school districts and parents who may be upset and need help
navigating the system. Additionally, the position would
work with DEED to ensure everyone was in compliance with
policies.
1:51:56 PM
Representative Hannan thought it seemed there may be two
state attorneys litigating against each other. She provided
a scenario where a parental rights complaint came in
against DEED. She considered that there would also be an
assistant attorney general defending DEED. She wondered if
she was envisioning the potential situation incorrectly.
Ms. Mills did not want to conflate consumer protection and
education, which were two different things. She relayed
that the complaints the division envisioned or had received
were not in relation to things DEED was doing. She
explained that DEED was generally just providing funding.
She clarified that the complaints were related to policies
school districts had to enact. She detailed that parents
did not always know where to go or what their rights were
under the law. The position would provide parents with a
resource where they could learn about those things.
Additionally, the position could help school districts
understand compliance requirements. The position would
potentially receive complaints and grievances, but it was
not like the consumer protection section that had subpoena
and investigative authority. She likened the position to an
ombudsman working through process and helping people
understand the laws. The position would also work with
school districts and advise DEED as it received issues. The
division currently had two full-time education attorneys
and their workloads were extremely high. The work would not
fit into their existing cases.
1:54:10 PM
Representative Josephson thought it sounded like he would
be wise to encourage his school district to be prepared to
have more billables from its general counsel to respond to
the enquiries. He thought it would be a logical result of
implementing the position.
Ms. Mills replied that it could be, depending on the number
of complaints. She noted the division was seeing a lot of
questions. She elaborated that it was the division's hope
that issues could be resolved by communicating with the
school district. She highlighted an example where an issue
had been resolved when the department had communicated with
a school district and that district was now in the process
of adopting a policy to comply with the law. She stated
that if compared to consumer protection, most of the cases
were resolved amicably through a process of education. She
stated it was how she saw most of the situations going.
Representative Josephson asked if the department would be
prepared to tell parents the law was complied with and they
had no grievance the law recognized.
Ms. Mills answered it got a little sticky because DOL's
client who it provided attorney-client privileged advice to
would be DEED. The position would provide parents with an
avenue to come to DOL to learn about the law and a
potential resolution. She did not foresee DOL providing
parents with private legal advice.
Representative Galvin asked what the considerations were
about whether it made more sense to use an ombudsman versus
attorneys in terms of helping parents navigate problems.
1:56:47 PM
Ms. Mills responded that the department was trying to work
within its current parameters. She explained that setting
up an ombudsman office would be a statutory change. The
department was trying to fill a resource gap based on a
number of complaints and issues that continued to arise.
The goal was to provide an avenue for people to know where
they could go to get information to understand the system
and hopefully DOL could also connect with DEED and the
school district.
Representative Galvin asked if another avenue would be for
the ombudsman to choose to take up a specialty around
helping families navigate issues related to the Office of
Children's Services (OCS) or education.
Ms. Mills responded that she did not know whether the
ombudsman had the authority to look into school districts.
The ombudsman had the authority to look into state
agencies, which would cover OCS. She did not know whether
the office had the same statutory authority at the
municipal level.
Ms. Mills turned to slide 11 and discussed the individual
sections under the Protective Legal Services Section of the
Civil Division. The Human Services Section was responsible
for all of the work for the Department of Health and the
Department of Family and Community Services with the
exception of OCS, which was covered by the Child Protection
Section. Human Services did all of the work for the
protection of vulnerable adults and civil commitments. The
Child Protection Section conducted all of the Child in Need
of Aid (CINA) proceedings around the state and was the
largest section within the Civil Division. The Commercial
and Fair Business Section was responsible for occupational
licensing and child support recovery. The state had a
statutory duty to represent the public interest before the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) ensuring utility
rates were proper and within the allowable calculations.
She explained that the Regulatory Affairs and Public
Advocacy Section went before the RCA to ensure the rates
were in the right ranges.
2:00:02 PM
Ms. Mills reviewed the six sections within the Government
Services Section on slides 12 and 13. She noted the section
contained the broadest array of the division's work. The
Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics Section housed all of the
division's appellate attorneys that went before federal and
state appellate courts. The Public Corporations and
Government Services Section represented all of the public
corporations in the state, the retirement systems, state
health plans, and DEED (the division's education attorneys
were currently housed under the section). The Special
Litigation Section included high profile, expedited, and
complex litigation including constitutional challenges and
elections matters. The section also housed the division's
consumer protection unit because it addressed a substantial
amount of large multistate antitrust complex litigation and
it made sense to house them with the litigation expertise.
The Labor and State Affairs Section represented the
governor and lieutenant governor's offices, the Division of
Elections, the Department of Administration (DOA),
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), and
the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA).
Ms. Mills turned to slide 13 and reviewed the last two
sections under the Government Services Section of the Civil
Division. The Legislation and Regulations Section included
a chief regulations attorney who reviewed all regulations
to ensure they did not conflict with the constitution of
statute. The section was also responsible for drafting all
of the governor's legislation. Additionally, the section
oversaw the department's interactions with the legislature
throughout the legislative session and ensured the
legislature received the testimony and attorney expertise
needed when reviewing legislation. The Professional
Development and Public Service Section was the newest
section, which had been created as a recruitment and
retention tool. The section oversaw all of the internship,
externship, and fellowship programs. She reported that the
division had received 145 applications for 18 spots in its
internship program in the current year. She noted it was
the highest number she had seen. She stated it was exciting
to see law students applying to come to Alaska for the
summer internship; the hope was get people interested in
coming back. She believed the efforts were working.
2:02:35 PM
Ms. Mills discussed the Torts and other Civil Defense
Litigation on slide 14. She explained that the state had a
lot of employees and it was a big player in a lot of ways;
therefore, it was sued often. She detailed the department
had a lot of torts inmate litigation for the Department of
Corrections (DOC). She provided a couple of examples of
cases that would fall under the Torts Section. She
explained that if a car ran into a guardrail and the driver
claimed it was negligent to have the guardrail it would be
a lawsuit that came against the state. She detailed that if
someone slipped and fell on state property it was a tort.
The section also included Workers' Compensation and
Corrections. She explained there were many employees within
the state system and employees were entitled to workers'
compensation if they were injured. The Department of Law
represented the Division of Risk Management to oversee
workers' compensation claims and defend the state in cases
when DOL did not believe the claim was correct.
Ms. Mills reviewed the Legal Support Services Section on
slide 16. The section was responsible for all of the work
on public records for the state and advised state agencies
on how to comply with the Public Records Act, records
retention laws, and disclosure of information. The section
provided management, training, and maintenance of the
statewide data management and processing systems.
Ms. Mills moved to slide 16 titled "State Fiscal
Preservation: Examples of FY2022 Revenue Generation and
Protection." She remarked that the state was sued often,
which resulted in numerous settlements, but there were also
areas where the department pursued collections for the
state as well. She highlighted areas of revenue recovery
beginning with funds recovered from Medicaid fraud. The
division's Natural Resources Section collected $1.4 million
in damages associated with the sinking of the Delta Chief
barge. The department had obtained $25 million in a
securities fraud settlement under the Public Corporations
and Government Services Section. She explained that the
division entered into securities fraud litigation on behalf
of the Permanent Fund and occasionally the retirement
system.
Representative Stapp looked at slide 16. He identified
subrogation as an area where the state could potentially
get a substantial amount of revenue back. He asked if DOL
was requesting any additional positions to ensure they
could claw much of the funding back.
Ms. Mills responded there was one attorney responsible for
doing the work. She agreed there was always more that could
be done, but it was a matter of balancing the resources
versus what the department believed it could bring back in.
Representative Stapp was looking at $13 million in third
party liability (TPL) and understood the state only
received a portion of the cost depending on Medicaid. He
asked how much more potential revenue was out there. He
wondered how much more could be brought in if there was an
additional attorney doing the work.
Ms. Mills replied that she would follow up.
2:07:01 PM
Representative Stapp asked if the same attorney was
responsible for audit settlements and judgements and trust
recovery.
Ms. Mills answered it was a separate person within the
division's Human Services Section. There were two or three
attorneys that covered the Medicaid issues.
Representative Stapp remarked that much of the Medicaid
liabilities could be offset by ensuring the state had the
right people targeting the right thing. He would find it
very interesting to know if the department could claw back
another $10 million to $20 million in TPLs that would
offset the state general funds.
Representative Coulombe asked about the consolidation. She
observed the presentation showed movement of money and
people. She asked if there was a cost associated with
consolidation and if the work was complete.
Ms. Mills clarified there was no physical consolidation, it
was an on paper budget issue. She explained it was about
how to best represent the department's budget in a way that
allowed the department to historically look back and did
not require constant change.
Representative Coulombe asked for verification the work had
all been completed.
Ms. Mills agreed. She stated it was now just up to the
legislature to reflect it in the budget.
Representative Josephson asked how the dismissal of the
U.S. Department of Education Impact Aid case benefitted
Alaska [slide 17].
Ms. Mills answered that the state received a large amount
of impact aid from the federal government that went out to
Alaska's schools. She explained that a few years back the
U.S. Department of Education changed its impact aid
calculation to include pupil transportation. She elaborated
that it would have greatly decreased the impact aid
received by Alaska. The department's education attorneys
had worked with outside counsel with expertise in the area
and to get the U.S. Department of Education to agree to a
different calculation technique to ensure the state would
continue to receive the $80 million to $86 million in
impact aid.
2:10:23 PM
Representative Cronk asked if the change had occurred
fairly recently.
Ms. Mills agreed. She relayed that the department had been
working on the issue for about two years and the news had
come in the past summer or fall.
Ms. Mills turned to slide 17 and continued to discuss
examples of FY 22 revenue generation and protection.
Regulatory Affairs and Public Advocacy was responsible for
making sure utility rates and costs were reasonable. She
detailed that in 2022 the section saw about $6.2 million in
quantifiable consumer benefits, which reflected the amount
saved by consumers for rates that were not imposed. The
Environmental Section had collected $1.8 million in
settlements and fines in 2022.
Ms. Mills moved to slide 18 titled "Civil Division's UGF vs
Other Fund Sources: FY2024 Governor's Proposed Budget." She
explained that about half of the Civil Division's budget
was in the budgets of other departments. For example, DNR
paid for all of the legal services for the division's
Environmental Section. She pointed to a bar chart and
explained that the gray portion of the bars represented
money the division received from other agencies to pay for
legal work for those departments. The blue portion of the
bars represented money directly appropriated to the Civil
Division. She highlighted the bar reflecting the budget for
Torts and Other Civil Defense Litigation and explained that
the section was primarily paid for through Risk Management;
therefore, the work did not account for a large part of the
division's UGF budget. She directed attention to the bar
representing Protective and Legal Services and Support and
explained that all of the CINA and child protection work
came to the division's budget.
2:12:57 PM
Ms. Mills moved to primary general fund uses for the Civil
Division beginning with the Child Protection Section on
slide 20. She emphasized that the section was fully staffed
for the first time in about five years, which was an
amazing accomplishment. She reported the division was
incredibly happy that the supervisor was now able to
supervise the 24 attorneys in her section without having a
larger caseload than normal. The caseload per attorney had
also decreased. She detailed that the national caseload
average was around 60 and the Child Protection Section
caseloads had been between 90 to 100 per attorney. The
division hoped the caseloads would stabilize. She explained
that the after effects of the pandemic would become more
clear now that mandatory reporters were seeing children;
therefore, the division anticipated the reports would
increase. The division was still conducting most of its
hearings remotely via Zoom or phone, which was working well
and enabled attorneys to be more efficient and get through
more hearings in a day. There had been an initiative to
move back to in-person hearings, but the division was not
supportive of the idea in relation to CINA proceedings. She
believed in-person hearings were more effective for the
Criminal Division. The Child Protection Section was getting
through its COVID-19 pandemic created backlog, but it was
not completely finished.
2:14:56 PM
Ms. Mills discussed promoting good governance on slide 21,
which covered other areas where the Civil Division received
general funds directly and was not funded through other
departments including appeals and ethics, special
litigation, legislation, employment cases, advising the
governor, and elections. She noted the division had a
designated ethics attorney who helped advise all state
agencies in complying with the Ethics Act.
Ms. Mills discussed the Civil Division's charge to defend
the state's management and ownership rights over natural
resources on slide 22. The division received some funding
from DNR, DFG, and DEC, but the primary statehood defense
litigation was mainly paid for through the division's
budget. She relayed that the main area where the division
had received budget increases in recent years was statehood
defense. She highlighted that the legislature had given the
division $6.5 million in multiyear appropriations over the
past two years. The funding did not lapse on an annual
basis, the department could hold onto the funds for four
years for use in statehood defense cases. Cases included
defending Alaska's right to statehood, the management of
its resources, or the protection of its natural resources.
Representative Josephson asked for verification the
division was not asking for anything in "this category."
Ms. Mills shook her head in agreement.
Representative Josephson referenced monies the governor
wanted to prep cases. He asked how the cases would have
been funded previously.
Ms. Mills replied that the funds probably would have been
in each department's budget and the departments would have
had to resource depending on the amount available to do
field studies. The work included surveying, field studies,
navigability (i.e., floating a river to make sure it was
navigable). She explained it was prepping in terms of
determining the science, what was on the ground, and
whether the state agreed with what the federal government
was representing as the science. Historically the work had
been handled by each individual department.
2:17:39 PM
Representative Hannan stated that the department had been
given $6.5 million and the Legislative Finance Division
reported there was $3 million remaining. She requested to
see the list of litigation funded by the expenditure. She
referenced the governor's request for an additional $10
million. She asked if the other allocation would be used if
the $6.5 million was expended. He referred to the Kenai
Refuge Rule and asked who made the decision on whether the
case was appealed. She remarked that some of the litigation
described by Ms. Mills was initiated by the department,
whereas it was unclear where some litigation had come from.
She highlighted litigation pertaining to submerged lands at
Mendenhall Lake as an example and explained she had been
unable to get an answer on where the lawsuit had come from.
Ms. Mills turned to a table on slide 26 showing the
multiyear statehood defense funding. The slide represented
all of the cases currently being funded with the existing
$6.5 million. She specified that $500,000 of the $6.5
million had to be reserved for Tongass related issues. The
list represented cases the Civil Division was currently
litigating, what the money was being used for, and
anticipated cost. She noted that the division tried to
estimate anticipated costs on the high end. She explained
that litigation could often cost more than anticipated and
the estimate included a buffer to account for the potential
of going through trial. The slide showed the current
anticipated costs were around $9 million.
Ms. Mills turned to anticipated litigation on slide 27
including RS 2477 cases, a PM 2.5 plan for Fairbanks,
federal management plans, Endangered Species Act, and the
Tongass Roadless Rule. She noted the items would likely
fall under the funding as well. She stated that costs would
be well over the $6.5 million previously appropriated to
the division. She remarked that some of the cases may end
early, which would keep costs down. She added that the
division may be able to do motions for rejudgment that
would kick the cases out faster. The division's cost
estimates were cautious. She addressed how the division
decided to initiate litigation. She explained it was
generally done in consultation with whatever department was
involved.
Ms. Mills referenced the Mendenhall Lake case mentioned by
Representative Hannan. She explained that DNR had a unit
that looked at navigability type issues. She detailed that
the state wanted to set precedent in the navigability realm
that would give the state and the federal government rules
so the state did not have to go one by one on each river to
determine whether it was under the purview of the state or
federal purview. The state's strategy was to pick large
families of rivers that were easy. She explained the
division's effort to get the caselaw and go forward to
determine the boat and draft needed. The division had been
trying to work with the federal government on the
recordable disclaimer of interest process, but the federal
government had not been moving to resolve the cases.
Therefore, the state was litigating the issues in the hope
of setting forth the foundational law to bring the state
and federal government to the table to resolve the cases in
a cheaper and easier way.
Ms. Mills referred back to the Mendenhall Lake case and
explained that the federal government was asserting it was
a pre-statehood withdrawal. The state disagreed and
believed there was an example of a case where the federal
government was conflicting with itself. The Mendenhall Lake
case was less about navigability and more about the
question of pre-statehood withdrawal. She relayed it was a
good case to use to determine the caselaw. The division was
anticipating a motion to dismiss the case filed by the
federal government, which should allow the division to get
to the heart of the legal question.
2:23:27 PM
Representative Hannan referenced the Kenai Refuge Rule
shown on slide 26. She believed the state had appealed the
case and had in essence lost its argument of controlling
the means and methods of hunting in the refuge. She asked
what the current status was. She thought it was a situation
where the state had likely been better off before the
appeal. She stated her understanding that the game managers
did not want the state to appeal, but it had done so, and
consequently the game managers had less control over game
management.
Ms. Mills answered that the problem had been that the state
had lost at the district court as well. She clarified that
the state "had a court order regardless." She was not quite
certain how the situation would have been much better. She
considered that perhaps it would have been a little better.
She pointed out there was also a National Park Service rule
that was being instated on much broader refuges. She stated
it was not ending and the situation would not be done until
the U.S. Supreme Court decided on whether to take the
state's cert case. She elaborated that ten states had filed
an amicus brief in Alaska's support because the court had
completely ignored congressional authority and had stated
that because the U.S. Constitution had a property clause,
the federal government "can do this." She relayed that the
court had ignored the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA) altogether. She explained that
other states were also seeing that the court gave no
recognition to the rights of states given by Congress to
manage fish and game hunting means and methods. She noted
that Chief Justice John Roberts had worked on Alaska issues
in the 1990s and had an understanding of the rules and why
Alaska was unique. The department was hopeful the U.S.
Supreme Court would take the case up on its merits. She
stated the decision was detrimental.
2:26:24 PM
Representative Josephson noted that there had been a
conversation on the topic in a finance subcommittee meeting
the previous week. He thought if Alaska people saw "this"
many would be elated. He remarked that some Alaskans would
think that in every instance where there was an opportunity
to support a reduction in emissions or support the right of
trails to have some setbacks or to say there would not be
black bear baiting near a highway, or that dogs would not
be used to hunt black bears. He stated that the federal
government did not want dogs to be used to hunt black bears
on federal land and the state was saying that it wanted to
use dogs to hunt black bears. He considered that perhaps he
could take solace from the fact that in every other
instance not listed [on slide 26] there was theoretically
no challenge; therefore, the federal government's vision
for an intact ecosystem for the environment or clean air
was fine for the state. He remarked that the only example
on the slide to indicate whether an item was an interest in
environmental preservation or more liberality in terms of
industrial development, air quality, and other, was the
increment labeled "former federal site cleanup." He
highlighted it was the only instance on the list where the
state was saying it was upset that Alaska's land was not
clean enough. He remarked that it worked out strategically
to the state's benefit because it was "the bad federal
government." He recognized that he would likely see the
situation differently if he was in Attorney General
Taylor's seat. He stated that he had talked about the
issues with Ms. Mills the previous week and he recalled she
had noted that the state aggressively went after fellow
Alaskans if they were polluters. He was left not knowing
who was looking after the natural environment of Alaska. He
shared that he was born in Alaska, and it was all he knew.
His concern was that Alaska had an incredible intact
wilderness and he wanted to know who was defending it.
2:29:20 PM
Attorney General Taylor replied that the department was
trying to preserve the legislature's ability to control
those policy decisions in Alaska. When DOL saw the federal
government encroaching on the legislature's ability to do
so, it was a red flag and the department stepped in. The
department believed Alaskans should be the ones making the
policy decisions on whether or not it was good to have a
black bear baiting station next to the highway. It was one
of the main components DOL identified when it chose whether
to get involved in a case. He stated that when things were
not challenged they expanded significantly; therefore, the
department had learned to address issues the first time
they arose and as if they would be applied to the rest of
Alaska. He referenced a question by Representative Hannan
about who made the decision to litigate. He responded that
DOL deferred to departments on some of the decisions, but
ultimately, he made the decision on whether to pursue
litigation and whether to settle a case or not.
Co-Chair Johnson thought statehood defense was keeping
things contained and preventing things from creeping over
into national park lands.
Ms. Mills agreed. She elaborated that if the [federal
government] could set the means and methods of hunting on
the Kenai Refuge, whether or not a person agreed with bear
baiting or not it was a regulation that came through the
Board of Game via a public Alaskan process. Traditionally,
DOL believed that ANILCA and the Statehood Act gave the
fish and game means and methods of hunting to the state.
She stated that often it involved sovereigns not agreeing
on where the lines were. She stressed that the department
represented the state's interests. She clarified that from
a policy perspective it meant DOL thought the decisions
should happen with the state, not that they should not
happen at all.
2:32:43 PM
Representative Cronk lived in an area where there was
federal encroachment in refuges and parks. He stated the
federal government was telling Alaskans what they could and
could not do. He elaborated that the federal government was
telling Alaska Natives they could no longer harvest bears
out of dens when it had been a practice for thousands of
years. He appreciated the [state's] fight [for statehood
defense]. He asked what was next. He stated there were
groups that believed a fishhook hurt fish; therefore, he
questioned whether sportfishing would be banned. He thanked
the department for the work and was uncertain the
governor's $10 million was sufficient. He wanted to ensure
the fights over the issues remained in Alaska and not with
someone in Washington D.C. telling Alaskans how to live.
Ms. Mills turned to slide 28 and reported there were a
couple of FY 24 governor amended proposed budget changes in
the Civil Division. The first was the addition of a new
attorney for parental rights in education advocate. The
second was the addition of an attorney to lead on tribal
law issues. She detailed that the state had been involved
in child welfare compacting for the past four to five
years. The state was also looking at education compacting
with tribes. The division saw numerous civil issues that
continued to arise on Indian gaming law, sovereign
immunity, government to government consultation, and
regulatory actions by the federal government defining what
a tribe was. She elaborated that Native corporations were
considered tribes for purposes of federal funding and other
things and the federal government was starting to change
some of those things. The division was having trouble
keeping on top of the issues and it was unable to devote
the resources to create the relationships and outreach it
should be creating because it was so focused on individual
cases that arose. The position would coordinate the issues
and provide outreach, interaction, and partnerships. She
remarked that sovereigns would have clashes, but the
position would work to partner and work together on top of
all of that.
2:35:47 PM
Representative Hannan referenced the proposed attorney to
lead on tribal law issues. She referred to a lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Interior and tribal lands
and whether the attorney would be assigned to the case.
Alternatively, she wondered whether the current litigation
was covered by a contract attorney outside the state. She
noted she had some tribes who had requested an answer to
the question. She remarked that it was unclear to her.
Ms. Mills replied that the specific proposed position would
not be envisioned to do the work referenced by
Representative Hannan. The position would be a coordinator
to ensure the division understood all of the issues that
touched Native law, but the individual would not be
directly involved in the litigation previously mentioned.
She clarified that the litigation already had specific
attorneys assigned. The position would be an outreach
component helping with compacting.
Attorney General Taylor added that the position was largely
a cost savings position. He explained that currently the
department was reactive, typically in response to
litigation. He elaborated that by then it was usually too
late to work with the other side to come to an agreement
that both sovereigns could agree on. The idea for the
position was to prevent some of that litigation. He
believed it was a cost savings measure and it was good
business when the state had better relations with other
sovereigns in the state.
2:38:06 PM
Representative Tomaszewski returned to the multiyear
statehood defense funding on slide 26. He looked at the
increment labeled "former federal site cleanup" and asked
how many decades the state had been going over the issue.
He wondered how many millions of dollars had been spent on
the issue and whether anything would ever be accomplished.
He understood there had been some progress, but he wondered
if there was any way to get the money back that the state
was spending and litigating.
Ms. Mills stated that unfortunately in federal court it was
not as easy to get attorney's fees even if the state was
successful. The Civil Division was hoping to move the
needle on getting a plan for what cleanup looked like. She
agreed that the situation had been going on "forever" and
the division decided it needed to resort to litigation
because the state kept getting promises [by the federal
government] with no action. She remarked that the increment
was a large expenditure and one of the division's most
expensive cases because of the need to go into the
contamination on each of the sites. She stated that
hopefully the issue could be resolved before spending the
full $2 million, but it would be up to the federal
government asserting it needed to do something and thus far
it had not demonstrated a willingness to do so.
2:39:31 PM
Ms. Mills reviewed the governor's proposed budget changes
on slide 29 for the Administrative Services Division. The
additional $250,000 request addressed increasing lease
costs in facilities occupied by DOL. She expounded that the
department had been absorbing the costs over the years, but
it finally needed a funding increase in order to avoid
impacts to day to day operations.
2:40:06 PM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, addressed slide 30 and reviewed the
division's mission:
The mission of the Criminal Division is to seek
justice, promote public safety, and further public
respect for government through prompt, effective, and
compassionate prosecution of cases.
Mr. Skidmore elaborated that the department had been
successful in promoting public safety and crime rates had
dropped dramatically in the past several years. The
Criminal Division's challenges resided with the ability to
promptly and effectively prosecute cases. There was
currently a delay in cases within the justice system and
the division was focused on working through the backlog and
getting things moving more effectively.
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 31 and explained that the
division was not responsible for the prosecution of federal
or municipal crimes or the investigation of criminal
conduct. He explained that predominately DOL did not have
investigators, while most prosecutor's offices in the Lower
48 had investigators to help them follow up on cases. There
was one exception in the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which
was funded with 75 percent federal dollars and 25 percent
state dollars. The unit had six investigators and was
responsible for investigating any Medicaid fraud occurring
within the state. The unit was also responsible for
addressing any criminal prosecution for Medicaid fraud.
There was one additional exception [related to investigator
positions] that he would address on a later slide.
2:42:26 PM
Mr. Skidmore discussed the duty of a prosecutor on slide
32. For example, the Cannons of professional ethics
indicated that the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in
public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that
justice is done. He explained that the Criminal Division
received 25,000 to 30,000 referrals annually, but the
referrals did not all result in charges filed because the
division determined some referrals did not meet the
elements needed for prosecution. The division filed around
20,000 cases annually. He elaborated that the division
filed dismissals annually for some cases it had filed
because its responsibility was to see that justice was done
and not simply to obtain convictions. He referenced a
second quote on the slide from a former U.S. Supreme Court
justice indicating that while the prosecutor was supposed
to prosecute with earnestness and vigor, the prosecutor was
not at liberty to strike foul blows that resulted in
improper convictions.
Mr. Skidmore advanced to slide 33 listed core services on
slide 33. The division provided assistance with
investigations. He detailed that he had previously worked
as a prosecutor for the Anchorage and Dillingham district
attorney offices and had gone to homicide scenes every time
there was a homicide. The division also provided assistance
on search warrants, wire taps, and evaluating cases with
tricky elements. He stated they were all activities the
division performed that did not get captured in the 25,000
to 30,000 annual referrals. Formal referrals were sent to
the division by law enforcement. He remarked that some
people mistakenly believed that a referral was
automatically sent to the division just because someone
called law enforcement and reported a crime.
Mr. Skidmore relayed that law enforcement did not refer
everything it received to the Criminal Division for
multiple reasons. For example, the report could be
unfounded, law enforcement could not solve the crime, or
the incident was not actually a crime. He referenced the
Uniform Crime Report (UCR) numbers and explained that the
number of prosecutions did not equal the number of crimes
reported. The third core service was screening and involved
the division's review of cases and decision on whether to
file charges. The fourth core service was pretrial
litigation and involved motion work. The fifth core service
was pretrial resolution related to plea negotiations. He
noted that the vast majority of cases were resolved through
plea negotiations. He noted the same was true in federal
cases and in all other states. The last two core services
included trial and post-trial litigation. He explained that
the division's job did not stop just because someone was
convicted in a jury trial or they had entered a plea. He
elaborated that appeals, post-conviction relief, violation
of probation, and other items could occur afterwards. There
were many types of litigation that occurred even beyond the
25,000 to 30,000 annual referrals.
2:47:08 PM
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 34 showing the structure of
the Criminal Division. The slide included a map of Alaska
indicating the division's office locations. The offices on
the slide were color coded to match the individual district
attorneys listed on the right of the slide. He pointed out
that Utqiagvik was supervised by the Fairbanks district
attorney, the Dillingham office was supervised by the
Anchorage district attorney, the Sitka office was
supervised by the Juneau district attorney, the Nome office
was supervised by the Kotzebue district attorney. The slide
also included Tamara De Lucia, who headed Appeals and Jenna
Gruenstein who headed Special Prosecutions. He relayed that
both offices had a statewide presence. He personally worked
in the Central Office along with Angie Kemp and legislative
assistant Kaci Schroeder. The Central Office provided
management and supervision over the division and provided
testimony to the legislature.
2:49:01 PM
Representative Stapp referenced Mr. Skidmore's mention of
six attorneys in the Medicaid Fraud Unit. He asked about
the caseload compared to other areas. He asked if the
number of attorneys was adequate for the unit.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that the six people were
investigators, not attorneys. Additionally, there were
three attorneys and several other staff assigned to the
unit. He would follow up with the caseload numbers.
Representative Stapp remarked that the state had not been
able to redetermine Medicaid enrollees for the past several
years [during the pandemic]. He asked how fraud had been
during that time.
Mr. Skidmore did not know whether there had been an
increase in Medicaid fraud during that time. He relayed
that not every case resulted in criminal charges or fraud.
There were instances where mistakes or errors occurred that
did not amount to criminal prosecution. Those things were
managed through the Medicaid Office and not the Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit. He clarified that just because the
fraud unit did not have statistics did not mean there was
no action being taken. He offered to follow up with
statistics from the fraud unit.
Representative Hannan asked how often a case of Medicaid
fraud involved a recipient versus a provider. It was her
perception that the fraud was not typically someone
receiving services; it was usually about whether treatments
should have been covered or provided.
Mr. Skidmore replied that the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit
was focused on providers and the billing they submitted to
Medicaid, not necessarily the recipients. He explained that
if the recipients were engaged in fraud it was welfare
fraud, which was handled by a prosecutor under Special
Prosecutions. The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit focused on
the provider, which was done by regulation or statute.
2:52:35 PM
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 35 and discussed recruitment
and retention. He stressed that the most valuable resource
of the department was its personnel. He relayed that
recruitment and retention was an issue for the division and
had been a challenge over the past five years. There had
been an applicant shortage nationwide in addition to
challenges specific to Alaska. The division had seen an
attrition rate of approximately 22 to 37 percent over the
past five years. Slide 36 provided a snapshot of the
applicant shortage. He noted the specific slide had first
been presented to a budget committee in 2020. The slide had
been produced by the organization NEOGOV that helped public
sector agencies nationwide to evaluate applicants and what
was taking place in the industry. The organization had told
the department in 2020 that there was a 37 percent gap
between the number of open positions and the people
applying. There had been an 8 percent decrease nationally
in the number of public sector job applicants at the same
time that more and more public sector jobs were becoming
open. He reviewed statistics on the slide:
• 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring per day = 11% of the
workforce per year. (Washington Post)
• 20% of Alaska state workers projected to retire in 1-5
years (Alaska Department of Administration)
• 11% of Alaska state workers eligible to retire in less
than 1 year (Alaska Department of Administration)
Mr. Skidmore relayed that the Civil and Criminal Divisions
had both seen retirements. He did not believe the rate had
been as high as 11 percent in the Criminal Division. He
continued to speak to the applicant shortage on slide 37.
He reviewed the slide:
• 8% decrease in number of applicants looking for public
sector jobs
• Average of 22% fewer applicants per job 2013-2018
• "Legal has suffered the biggest impact in applicants
per job, with a 64% decline in applications. Legal
jobs saw, on average, 33 fewer applicants per
available job in 2018 compared to 2013." (NEOGOV
Hiring Trends Report 2019)
• 19% decrease in Alaska applicants over last five years
(Alaska Department of Administration)
• 49 prosecutor positions recruited during 2019 with an
average of less than 5 applicants per position.
Mr. Skidmore relayed that he had been in Washington D.C.
about three weeks ago for a national job fair specifically
for prosecutors. There had been an opportunity to talk to
members of the federal government who had indicated there
had been a decrease in applications nationwide. He shared
that a participant from Ohio had explained that in the past
he had a thick stack of applications, but he was now lucky
if he had a handful. He finished addressing slide 37 and
explained there had been fewer applicants, less experienced
applicants, longer recruiting periods, and greater stress
on current employees.
2:58:20 PM
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 38 titled "Improvement in
Applicant Numbers." He highlighted that the division
currently had guarded optimism related to the number of
applicants. He thanked the legislature for the efforts it
took the previous year that had made a difference for the
division. He explained that attorneys had received an
increase in salary beginning in November [2022]. He pointed
to a bar graph showing the number of applicants for
prosecutor jobs from 2022 to 2023. He highlighted that the
number had jumped from 11 applicants in November to 18 in
December and 38 by January. He could not say whether the
increase in applicants would last, but the salary increase
had made a difference thus far.
Mr. Skidmore turned to slide 39 and discussed retention
efforts taken by the division including salary increases,
training, a revamped website, social media presence,
expansion of posting locations, and attending job fairs. He
reviewed attrition rates for the division:
• Prosecutors in 2018: 36.5% turned over (42 of 115)
• Prosecutors in 2019: 22.3% turned over (27 of 121)
• Prosecutors in 2020: 15.8% turned over (20 of 126)
• Prosecutors in 2021: 20.6% turned over (27 of 131)
• Prosecutors in 2022: 19.0% turned over (25 of 131)
Mr. Skidmore elaborated on the turnover rates and pointed
out it was necessary to keep in mind that the division had
increased its number of positions during the timeframe. The
total number of prosecutor positions had increased from 115
to 131 over the five-year period. He reported that in 2022,
25 attorneys had left the Criminal Division (6 of the 25
had transferred to the Civil Division). He remarked that
when treating the Criminal and Civil Divisions exactly the
same, it created challenges for the Criminal Division. He
explained that prosecution created a harder work-life
balance. He elaborated that Criminal Division prosecutors
were on-call and had to be present for homicide calls. He
pointed out that it was not something the division could
easily compensate for; it was necessary to find ways to
address the issues. He cited the number of cases as another
challenge. He remarked that two of the 25 prosecutors that
left the division in 2022 went to the Public Defender
Agency and Office of Public Advocacy. Another three of the
25 had a licensing issue, but the Alaska Supreme Court had
reversed the determination earlier in the current week. He
explained that a certain score was required to be eligible
to take the bar exam in Alaska, but the Alaska Supreme
Court had voted to reduce the needed score because it had
the highest required score nationwide. The department had
effectively persuaded the court to reduce the number from
280 to 270 to put the state with the majority of other
states. The change would enable the department to reverse
the three people it lost for licensing reasons.
3:03:32 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued to discuss slide 39. He highlighted
that in 2022 the division had lost 25 attorneys and gained
31. He relayed that 13 of the 31 attorneys had experience
(including six former employees), which was a change for
the division; it had previously been unable to hire
attorneys with experience. He shared that every one of the
six attorneys cited the salary increase as the reason for
their return. He noted that he did not mean to indicate all
of the division's problems had been solved. He reported
there were currently 24 open attorney positions within the
division. He indicated that 14 of those positions were
slotted to be filled by applicants who had accepted the
division's offer and would begin later in the year. Of the
remaining positions, the division had been conducting
interviews for six during the current week. The division
was making positive progress to close the gap.
Co-Chair Johnson gave a shout out to Representative
Josephson because he had made an amendment [the previous
session] to increase pay for attorneys, which had made a
difference in recruitment and retention. She appreciated
the work the division was doing.
3:05:56 PM
Mr. Skidmore discussed two changes proposed by the governor
to the Criminal Division's FY 24 budget on slide 40. The
first change pertained to software and storage for
audio/visual evidence in criminal cases for approximately
$400,000. He explained that when the division wanted to
prosecute a case there was an investigation and the
information was brought to the prosecution. A large portion
of the information was digital including cell phone
information and audio. He stated that every contact law
enforcement had with a witness in a case was recorded
audially. Digital evidence included video footage of
interviews at the police station, security camera footage,
social media accounts, and photos. The division managed the
information on an internal drive, but it had presented
problems for the division. He elaborated that use of the
drive had grown exponentially and it did not allow the
division to edit the audio and video; it was not the
cleanest way for the division to manage the information.
The request would pay for software to increase efficiency.
He stressed that the division was about to be inundated
with additional video from body cameras. He detailed that
the Alaska State Troopers and the Anchorage Police
Department were both in the process of implementing a
policy for body cameras. He informed members that more than
75 percent of the division's cases came from those two law
enforcement agencies.
3:08:09 PM
Mr. Skidmore continued to review slide 40. He emphasized
that the $400,000 was not for the purchasing of the system.
The Criminal Division was prepared to pay for the purchase
cost in the current year with funds from its vacancy
factor. The funding request would cover the annual
subscription and the storage of digital evidence going
forward. The division had not yet made a purchase because
it did not have the future funding amount authorized. The
software would increase efficiency. He reviewed the
benefits of the software. The software would provide for a
certain number of hours of transcription and would be
accessible by prosecutors on computers outside of the state
system. He recalled countless times in his past position as
a prosecutor where he wanted to be at home and not having
to drive 30 minutes back to the office was a huge benefit.
3:10:34 PM
Representative Galvin asked about the $400,000 UGF. She
appreciated the division was being careful and that it had
the funding because of vacancies. She referenced
recruitment and retention and the different efforts being
made by the division. She asked if the division had
considered using money from vacancies on signing bonuses of
a large amount to bring attorneys in from out of state. She
noted that other departments had used signing bonuses.
Mr. Skidmore answered that DOL had looked at a host of
issues. The department had considered signing bonuses but
the increase in salaries had made a substantial difference.
He thanked the legislature for the increase. The division
did not currently feel the need for signing bonuses. There
were other steps the division was evaluating internally to
help with recruitment and retention.
Representative Cronk looked at the $400,000 increment and
asked if the division planned to pay for a new system with
funding from its vacancies.
Mr. Skidmore answered that with vacancies the division was
able to purchase the software. He noted that the cost to
purchase the software was closer to $500,000 or $600,000
currently. The division could pay for the purchase with the
excess funding due to vacancies. The funding from vacancies
meant the division would not have to ask for a capital
request. The $400,000 was for future expenses to pay for
the storage and operation of the system moving forward.
Representative Hannan remarked that the Department of
Public Safety (DPS) needed software, hardware, and staff
related to body cameras. She considered the software and
storage increment and wondered whether it would be up to
individual attorneys to manage the substantial amount of
new evidence the Criminal Division would have to store and
manage.
Mr. Skidmore responded that he appreciated the question and
explained that he did not yet know what would ultimately
happen. He did not like to request funding from the
legislature until he was certain the money would be needed.
He confirmed there would be an increase. The department's
first step was to get a system to allow it to store and
review the data. He was not prepared to tell the
legislature that management of the system would require
additional employees. The division would have to start
onboarding the new software before he could provide an
effective answer to Representative Hannan's question.
3:15:05 PM
Mr. Skidmore discussed the increment related to internet
connectivity on slide 40. He shared that in the past the
division had thick, voluminous files that contained all of
the information it had to manage. The division had moved
from paper to digital files in 2014 with a program called
Prosecutor by Karpel (PBK) and had put most of its
information in the cloud to connect its various offices
including Anchorage, Palmer, Kenai, Juneau, Sitka, and
Ketchikan. The division had not been able to do so in its
locations with internet connectivity issues such as
Dillingham, Nome, Kotzebue, and Bethel. He stated that each
of the offices had a version of PBK loaded on a local
server used to manage their files. The challenge was that
PBK was an internet browser-based system.
Mr. Skidmore explained that the program had been based on
Internet Explorer (IE); however, Microsoft no longer
supported IE and now used a browser called Edge. He shared
that about 33 percent of all prosecutors nationwide used
PBK; all of those prosecutors now had their files in the
cloud with the exception of Alaska. The division had four
offices that were not in the cloud because they did not
have adequate internet connectivity. The division needed to
move the offices into the cloud. He discussed the problems
with the current system. He explained that in order to find
out what was going on at the Bethel office it was necessary
to log onto the Bethel server from a state computer; it was
not possible to do the work remotely. The budget request
would increase the internet connectivity in rural offices.
Nome and Kotzebue were not included because the division
believed their offices could be upgraded. He understood
there was talk about trying to bring fiber into Bethel. He
hoped it happened, but it was not his approach to hope and
wish it would work out. The additional $350,000 increment
would enable the division to acquire the hardware and
subscription services to provide internet connectivity to
division offices that needed it.
3:19:51 PM
Representative Josephson referenced Mr. Skidmore's
statement that he did not like to make [budget] requests
unless he was certain the funds were needed. He referred to
supplemental funding for the Office of Public Advocacy and
the Public Defender Agency because of the lack of staff to
handle the serious felonies, particularly on the state's
west coast. He had seen a change record detail that
indicated in response to HB 325 ("no means no"
legislation), the two agencies were seeking close to $1
million to vet those cases. The change record detail noted
the agencies would require additional positions linked to
HB 325 (that had a recent effective date). He asked how
those agencies foresaw the need, but the Criminal Division
did not have a like request.
Mr. Skidmore replied that when the bill had been introduced
the previous session the division had indicated there would
be an additional need for positions. The division had
requested five attorneys and five support staff. He stated
the need continued to exist. He explained that when the law
had passed and the fiscal note had not been attached, the
division had chosen not to request the positions. He
elaborated that the decision had been made because the law
had just gone into effect and fiscal notes were always a
best guess at what a cost may be. He did not know if it
would be the best way to do it or not. He noted that if the
workload increased for the Office of Public Advocacy and
the Public Defender Agency, it would also increase for the
Criminal Division. He remarked that the two agencies did
not get assigned cases unless the Criminal Division filed
charges. He confirmed the division would have additional
need, but he did not yet know exactly how much the need
would be. The best guess was the fiscal note from the
previous year [associated with HB 325]. He added that at
the time the division had been evaluating budget requests
in October 2022, it had a significant vacancy factor and
had not been able to fill all of the positions it had
subsequently filled. He was loathe to request positions
from the legislature when it could not fill vacant
positions. He stated the division was in a different
position now than it had been.
3:23:20 PM
Representative Josephson thought it sounded like the
division had a good problem as it was filling the vacant
positions. He considered that the agencies [the Public
Defender Agency and the Office of Public Advocacy) had a
need and it would a waterfall effect that would impact the
Criminal Division first. He surmised they would have to see
how the situation played out.
Mr. Skidmore reviewed an additional request in the
governor's amended budget for a full-time investigator
position. The position would serve a dual purpose for
election fraud and rural homicide/felony sex offences and
other violent crimes. He reported that there were no
dedicated investigators for elections fraud in Alaska. He
believed there should be investigators for that purpose. He
detailed that 25 percent of the position would look at
elections cases to decide whether something rose to the
level of criminal conduct or not. He stated it was
difficult to make the determinations without an
investigation. There had been some investigations referred
to the division and there were a few charges that would be
filed, but to date, the division had not found a
significant amount of fraud indicating any reason to
believe that any elections results were invalid. He
believed the public deserved a right to have someone look
and provide definitive answers about whether [election
fraud] existed. He explained that 25 percent of the
position's work would be related to election fraud because
there were state elections every two years.
Mr. Skidmore continued to review slide 41. He detailed that
the position would be based in Special Prosecutions and the
remainder of the position would focus on domestic violence,
sexual assault, and homicide cases in rural Alaska. There
were a couple of existing positions that focused on those
type of crimes in rural Alaska. He stated that Alaska faced
challenges in having enough law enforcement in its rural
areas. He indicated that having an investigator to help the
division follow up to ensure its cases were in the best
possible position for prosecution would be a significant
benefit.
3:27:15 PM
Representative Josephson asked about the portion of the
position for election fraud. He referenced Mr. Skidmore's
indication that the public was entitled to know [whether
fraud existed]. He stated there were 60 cases following the
presidential election in 2020 and the public was not
satisfied. He relayed that [a portion of] the public
continued to not believe the election results. He found the
position to be analogous to the parental rights position in
that he did not know whether it would calm and deflect the
sometimes wild claims or fuel the fire that was not there.
He remarked that the last two lieutenant governors
(including the current one) had said the elections were
free and fair. He asked if the state really wanted to get
into it.
Mr. Skidmore posed a question in response to Representative
Josephson's question. He provided a scenario where
individuals voted more than once in Alaska or in Alaska and
another state. He asked if the individuals should be
prosecuted for committing those crimes. He believed the
answer was yes. He stated in order to do so, the division
needed an investigator to bring the information to the
division. Conversely, if someone did not believe the people
should be held responsible for the conduct, there would not
be a need for the investigator. He thought it created a
worse problem when allegations were made and there was no
follow up. He reasoned that the decision [to fund or not
fund the position] would be made by the legislature.
3:29:43 PM
Co-Chair Edgmon saw four bullets on slide 41 related to
elections. He found it hard to substantiate the need to
hire an election investigator. He looked at the skillset
that may be needed for election fraud, conflict cases, and
rural homicide/felony sex offences and other violent
crimes. He wondered how to find one individual to fill the
role for all of the categories mentioned. He thought each
topic required a unique skill set. He was having a hard
time wrapping his head around the need for an election
fraud investigator in Alaska.
Mr. Skidmore answered that the skill set the division was
looking for was a former police officer who was able to
investigate and provide information. He clarified that the
individual would not be responsible for handling homicide
and sexual assault investigations on their own. The
position would be responsible for follow up investigation.
He agreed the elections fraud was a different skillset, but
the work all pertained to interviewing people, gathering
records, and following up on things provided at the
direction of the prosecutor's office. He asserted that the
skillset would be much more similar than what someone may
originally envision.
Co-Chair Edgmon referenced Mr. Skidmore's earlier
statements that the division saw 25,000 to 30,000 cases per
year and that most resulted in plea deals. He asked if
there were issues of election fraud in Alaska that rose to
the level of needing investigating. He could imagine
perhaps a small number. He asked if there was a significant
number.
Mr. Skidmore replied there were a small number of 60 to 70
cases out of the 25,000 to 30,000 referred. He stated it
came down to whether the state thought that people
violating the laws should be held responsible. He submitted
that they should be. He stated it was a policy decision to
be decided by the legislature in its appropriation
authority.
Co-Chair Edgmon reasoned that the investigator would likely
end up spending a small amount of its time on the election
fraud component.
Mr. Skidmore agreed.
3:33:44 PM
Representative Stapp stated he was interested in saving
money and costing the state less money. He wondered if
there could be a follow up in writing about vendor
management contract negotiations with companies such as
Xerox in order to save money in the long term.
Co-Chair Johnson thanked the presenters.
HB 39 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 41 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Johnson reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Law HFIN Budget Presentation 2-24-23.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 39 |
| LAW Response HFIN Overview Amicus Brief 02242023.pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2023 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN LAW FY24 Budget Overview 2-24-23 Follow Up 3-7-23 .pdf |
HFIN 2/24/2023 1:30:00 PM |
HB 39 |