Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/14/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB298 | |
| Election of the House Judiciary Standing Committee Vice Chair | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 298 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 298-NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
1:06:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the only 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."
1:06:40 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, advised that
she was speaking today on behalf of the Alaska Supreme Court,
and explained that HB 298 increases the allotted number of
superior court judges by one in the First Judicial District.
This legislation is sponsored by the Alaska Supreme Court and
while it is similar to a governor's bill, this is not a
governor's bill, it is the means of introducing a bill by
another branch of government. The Alaska Court System does not
often propose legislation because statutory changes usually call
for policy determinations, which is squarely within the
providence of the legislative branch of government. She
explained that, 2011 was the last time the court system offered
a bill which, amended this same statute to add two additional
judges for the Third Judicial District. Typically, she
explained, the court system would handle its own staffing
changes and classifications of positions because those are
internal administrative matters the court deems best for its
caseload. Ms. Meade described this situation as unique because
AS 22.10.120 determines the number of superior court judges, and
the Constitution of the State of Alaska determined that the
number of superior court judges are set by the legislature;
however, that is not true for district court judges.
1:09:14 PM
MS. MEADE reminded the committee that last week, Chief Justice
Craig Stowers pointed out that, for a number of years, Juneau
has had the second highest number of superior court case filings
per superior court judge in the state. The highest number of
filings is in Anchorage, except comparing those numbers is not
exactly apples-to-apples because Anchorage utilizes other
resources, and for efficiency reasons some judges hear civil
cases and some judges hear criminal cases. Given this high
number of cases per each Juneau superior court judge, and
despite their best efforts the cases are slowed down wherein
they may not have the time on their calendars to schedule the
necessary hearings as quickly as they could, and written work
products are delayed when coming out of the Juneau Superior
Court, she offered.
MS. MEADE related that the court system has recognized this
problem for some time and in 2014-2016, it had a capitol budget
request to add a new courtroom to the Juneau Courthouse to
accommodate visiting judges because sometimes the Juneau sitting
judges were using the courtrooms so scheduling for the visiting
judges was difficult. Those requests to the legislature were
not successful, and instead, the court redistributed those cases
and it dealt with the existing courtrooms. In that regard, the
Presiding Judge of the First Judicial District has been
traveling to Juneau to assist in the Juneau caseload. Except,
she said, that judge resides and handles the Ketchikan Superior
Court cases, but he has taken about one-third of the civil case
filings from the Juneau Superior Court, absorbed all of the
administrative appeals in the Juneau Superior Court, and
regularly handles large felony cases that would otherwise be
handled by the Juneau Superior Court judges. She advised that
the presiding judge handles many issues by video, but he does
travels for the hearings that must occur in person, thereby,
accruing travel costs the court system hopes to eliminate. She
stressed that she was not implying the presiding judge's travel
costs would cover the increased costs being absorbed by the new
judge.
1:12:12 PM
MS. MEADE pointed out that the Ketchikan judge's caseload does
not stop when he is on-the-road handling Juneau cases. She
pointed out that due to the presiding judge's expansive sense of
responsibility toward his Juneau colleagues and litigants, he
works "pretty much" all Saturdays and rarely gets a break
because he still has his normal caseload while taking on these
extra cases. The presiding judge tries to limit a Juneau
judge's caseload travel to have one of the other judges in the
district travel. This, she described, is a stop-gap measure to
stop the problem from progressing too fast, but it is not a
sustainable model. The court system is looking for a true
solution to the problem rather than just the current band-aid
fix in utilizing visiting judges.
MS. MEADE advised that the solution presented itself with great
timing in that Juneau currently has two superior court judges
and two district court judges, and one of the existing district
court judges announced his plan to retire effective June 29,
2018, at the end of the fiscal year. The Alaska Supreme Court
decided this was ideal timing to seek to have that district
court judge seat filled by a superior court judge rather a
district court judge. In the event HB 298 is enacted, the
Alaska Judicial Council will advertise for a superior court
judgeship for that retiring district court judge's seat, and
three superior court judges and one district court judge will be
the model. Superior court judges have statewide jurisdiction
over all trial level work, whereas the district court judges
have a subset of that jurisdiction. Generally, she explained,
superior court judges handle felonies, child in need of aid
(CINA) cases, domestic relations, and civil cases where the
amount being argued is over $100,000, which is where the
bottleneck is in Juneau. By comparison, district court judges
handle only misdemeanors, domestic violence protective orders -
not domestic relations, and civil cases below $100,000, as well
as minor offenses such as citations, traffic or fish and game
tickets. Changing this seat to a superior court judgeship means
those judges will, and have agreed to, handle some district
court casework, she said.
1:15:21 PM
MS. MEADE explained that the change from that district court
judge to a superior court judge will also mean a big drop in the
number of filed cases assigned to each superior court judge, and
that those three superior court judges will assist in district
court cases. Moreover, she offered, for the past many years,
Juneau's magistrate judge position has basically performed
"master work" in assisting the superior court judges with
preliminary hearings and case file preparations to lighten their
workload. In the event HB 298 is enacted, that magistrate judge
position will segway into more typical magistrate judge duties,
which is helping district court judges with citations and minor
offenses. Therefore, she pointed out, with these two additional
ways of handling the district court's cases, the court system
does not anticipate any negative impact to the district court.
Indeed, she offered, this change will put Juneau almost exactly
the same as Kenai, the three and one model, in terms of both
superior and district court case filing numbers.
MS. MEADE referred to fiscal impacts and explained that this
current timing makes it possible for the court system to make
these changes with a zero-fiscal note. The only additional cost
this change would cause is the difference in salary between the
district court judge and the superior court judge, and the
required benefits. She offered that that amounts to
approximately $35,500 and the court system is willing to absorb
that cost. Typically, she explained, when the court system
requests a new judge, the new judge receives a judicial
assistant, law clerk, in-court clerk, and sometimes construction
funds for the new chambers. In this case, she pointed out,
because the change is due to the retirement of a district court
judge, the change will not require any additional resources at
this time in terms of office space, security officers, in-court
clerk, existing judicial assistants, and law clerks. The
$35,500 figure can be absorbed within the court system through
the savings it has achieved through attrition and where it
tightened its budget. The Supreme Court, the presiding judge,
and the Juneau judges all believe this will work, it is a
"terrific solution" which will benefit litigants and everyone
without any downside, she stressed.
1:18:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered appreciation for the court
system's usual orientation toward efficiency and frugality.
Without fail, he said, he has found the court system to be
inspiring, if not a lesson, to how a branch of government
delivers responsible essential services to Alaskans. He asked
whether this is the one-time Ms. Meade is testifying on a piece
of legislation that the court system is not neutral.
MS. MEADE advised that the court system is not neutral, it is in
favor of this legislation that the court system is sponsoring.
1:19:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she likes HB 298, and if all
of the departments ran their budgets in the same manner as the
court system, the state would probably have much less of a
fiscal problem. She described that the court system is "so pro-
active about things" and this bill is doing what is discussed
all of the time, which is looking outside of the box.
MS. MEADE thanked Representative LeDoux and advised that she
will pass her comments on to those who make the budget
decisions.
1:20:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked that if estimates were overly
optimistic and additional staff was required after this change,
would the court system come back to the legislature to fix that
issue or could it be handled internally.
MS. MEADE answered that the court system is currently able to
handle this change. Possibly, in a couple of years if the
caseloads differ significantly or something happens and the
court system decides an additional law clerk is appropriate, it
could take that on without coming back to the legislature, she
advised. The court system is in front of the legislature today
solely due to the fact that superior court judge positions are
set by law under the constitution. The court system's other
positions can be readily filled or not filled as the court
system deems appropriate and efficient, she remarked.
1:21:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN surmised that this is Plan A and asked
her to explain Plan B if this bill does not pass.
MS. MEADE reiterated that with the district court judge
retiring, if the legislature does not pass this bill, the court
system will advertise that position as a district court
judgeship again and will continue as it has in the past.
Probably, she said, that Ketchikan presiding judge will continue
to be willing to travel to Juneau to take on some of that
caseload. Except, the court system believes that plan may cause
it to get even deeper into the backlog hole. Plan B could carry
a heavier fiscal impact next year that the court system would
not be able to absorb, she pointed out.
1:23:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Plan C would be to have the
current positions filled and then adding one additional judge.
He asked her to contrast this bill with Plan C.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether he meant the fiscal difference
between adding a superior court judge and having to fund that
superior court position as opposed to doing it without a fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said that he understands there would be a
fiscal note there, and he asked whether there are any other
factors that would weigh against "going that route," other than
the fiscal impact.
MS. MEADE stated that she may not understand his question fully,
but if HB 298 does not pass, the court system would fill that
retiring judge's seat with another district court judge, and
next year the court system would try again for a superior judge.
However, she reiterated, [that plan] might require the addition
of a judge's chambers and additional resources causing the court
system to not accomplish that "for free."
CHAIR CLAMAN instructed Representative Eastman that he concurred
with Ms. Meade in that his question was vague and ambiguous
beyond the fiscal impacts.
1:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that, if the state had all of the
money in the world and had all the judges the state might need,
and "we were to have both a district and a superior court judge,
that under this bill we wouldn't be having because we would just
be choosing to have one of those options," he asked what would
be some of the benefits or downsides both for and against that
option.
MS. MEADE pointed out that the more judges the state has the
faster cases could be handled. Except, she further pointed out,
the justice system is an intricate web and if the legislature
determined the court system should have additional superior
court judges and district court judges, that decision would
impact all of the different agencies practicing in front of
those judges. Therefore, it may not move cases faster if there
were not enough public defenders, district attorneys, OCS
attorneys, and so forth, to bring those cases. At this time,
she reiterated, it is the decision of the presiding judge and
the Supreme Court that HB 298 will best help the court system to
efficiently handle the Juneau caseload, and that is the number
one priority in terms of where the resource is needed that will
most impact the overall caseloads.
1:26:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he understands that the court system
is making projections based on its best information available.
He said that there have been other testimonies that the state
does not have enough prosecutors or enough resources in the
Department of Law (DOL) to handle all of the complaints coming
forward. He asked how much extra bandwidth is offered under HB
298 if next year and in the future, there is a significant
increase in complaints and prosecutions coming from the DOL.
MS. MEADE said that she thinks she understands his question to
be asking whether, even if this were to pass, the court system
had enough resources to handle what might be an increase in
cases. She advised that the court system determined that the
existing statewide judgeships are sufficient in handling what it
believes will take place. In the event that does not happen,
she said that she supposes it will be handled in the court
system's ordinary course of business, assess what was happening,
and think of a solution in terms of budget increments for the
next year. Currently, she said, looking at what the court
system understands to be the other agencies requests and
caseload trends, this judgeship is all that is needed in terms
of judicial resources to handle what may be coming in the
future.
1:27:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked that because there are two superior
court judges in Juneau whether the court system is ever faced
with litigation wherein the judges were preempted out, which
ends up costing more money.
MS. MEADE agreed, and she said that this legislation should
prevent other judges from traveling to Juneau when both parties
exercise their preemptory challenge. She related that,
currently if both judges get "bumped or challenged" by the two
different parties, a judge from elsewhere in the district would
travel to Juneau. Having three superior court judges cuts down
on the possibility that would take place, she remarked.
1:29:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested a ballpark figure for
the frequency in which both judges are preempted in Juneau.
MS. MEADE answered that, "big ballpark," it is not a common
occurrence at all. The Juneau judges do not experience "blanket
bumps" where an agency decides it will always bump a certain
judge out. She said that that might happen in other parts of
the state at times, but currently [Juneau] judges are not
routinely or often challenged by the parties.
1:29:53 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 298. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony
on HB 298.
1:30:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that he will be supporting the
bill at present. He voiced a concern about what happens when
the "7,000 or so cases" not prosecuted this past year, are
prosecuted once there are enough to resources to prosecute. He
said he has concern the judicial resources necessary are not
appropriately anticipated. While this is somewhat cosmetic as
far as the change, he described that he understands the number
of judges is not particularly being reduced. There are aspects
of that which speak to the fact that the state does not need
more judges, and he was unsure that would be case going forward,
he said.
1:31:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT echoed Representative LeDoux's comments
in that she also wishes all of the departments in the state ran
as efficiently and aware as the Alaska Court System. The court
system does a fantastic job, it is always open, and she trust
that when it comes to the legislature to ask for something that
it out of a true need. She expressed appreciation for the
openness of the court system with the judicial branch of
government bringing a bill to the legislative branch of
government. That openness is important and she will be
supporting HB 298 as it moves forward and that she understands
the judges are under constant time constraints while performing
an excellent job. She reiterated admiration for the judicial
branch and how it works together with the legislative branch.
1:32:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that he echoes Representative Millett
and clearly, the only real cost down the road will be a small
offset for the judicial retirement system increase. That is a
modest price to pay for the efficiency of that upgraded position
and what it will mean to Southeast Alaska, he remarked. He
suggested that if Representative Eastman was sincere, that
Representative Eastman could bring a $250,000 House of
Representative floor amendment to add another judge.
1:33:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commented that on a more personal level, when he
was younger and working in Juneau in the court system, there
were two superior court judges, one district court judge, and
one magistrate judge. The district court would see a fair bit
of the magistrate and a fair bit of the district court judge,
and there was the sense that if things got busy and more
complicated that adjustments would have to be made. That model
led the court system, several years ago, to add a district court
judge to address that caseload. This legislation, he described,
is a pro-active recognition of the realities of the Juneau
caseload and it addresses that issue effectively "without having
to do a build out to the court system" or start leasing a
courtroom in another building and all of the building that might
be required to make that take place. He complimented the court
system in being pro-active and figuring out solutions consistent
with the financial challenges the state faces. He said he is
pleased to support HB 298.
1:34:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report HB 298, Version
30-LS1279\A out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 298
passed from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB298 ver A 2.14.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 298 |
| HB298 Sponsor Statement 2.14.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 298 |
| HB298 Supporting Document-Case Filing Data 2.14.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 298 |
| HB298 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.14.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 298 |
| HB298 Fiscal Note DPS-DET 2.14.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 298 |