Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/29/2022 09:00 AM 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 | |
| HB226 | |
| HB416 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 226 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 416 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 226
"An Act relating to the compensation of certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by
collective bargaining agreements; increasing the
salaries of certain attorneys employed by the state;
and providing for an effective date."
9:04:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, SPONSOR, presented HB 226.
The bill had a direct focus on increasing the pay for
attorneys within the State of Alaska to improve retention.
He had once worked for the Public Defender's Office and had
personally witnessed significant disparity in pay for
attorneys. Further aggravating this difficulty was the fact
that state lawyers fell into the classification of
"partially exempt" employees, meaning they did not belong
to a union and could only receive pay increases at the
behest of the legislature. A pay increase for this employee
class had not taken place since 2015. The beginning salary
for an Attorney 1 in Alaska was $62,000, but the starting
salary for an entry-level municipal attorney in Anchorage
was $85,000. The bill would increase salaries by 10 percent
and change the starting salary to $68,000. The increase was
statutorily required in Title 39. The commentary on the
bill in the House State Affairs Committee suggested that 10
percent remained too low. He reported hearing about
retention problems in the finance subcommittee for the
Department of Law. To help alleviate the problem, he and
Representative Matt Claman inserted bonuses into the
current budget, however this was not a permanent solution.
Representative Josephson continued that he learned from Ms.
Cori Mills and Mr. John Skidmore from the Department of Law
(DOL) that there were 15 vacant positions and 18 positions
in active recruitment. In FY 22, the department hired 22
attorneys and 17 attorneys left the department. In the
criminal division, there were 22 attorney positions open
and 12 were in active recruitment. He relayed that
attorneys were leaving because the pay was poor, and the
work was challenging and often disturbing. The attorneys in
the Office of Children's Services had a high turnover rate
and active attorneys were often inexperienced. Efforts had
been made by DOL to solve the issue by recruiting students
out of law school and hiring people who had not passed the
bar exam. There was a national district attorney salary
study that recommended a wage of $87,000, and the state
only paid $62,000. Ms. Mills stated that since 2018, 93 out
of the 123 attorneys in the Civil Division had left. Ms.
Mills shared she had one opening for 106 months without it
being filled. He explained that solving the retention
problem related to state attorneys involved paying bonuses
as well as increasing salaries.
Representative Josephson read a portion of a letter he had
received from an attorney within DOL. The letter
highlighted the importance of having skilled attorneys in
the state. He relayed that he had also received an email
from a public defender in Montana who shared that entry-
level attorneys earned $81,000 in Montana.
Co-Chair Merrick noted Representative Wool and
Representative Rasmussen had joined the meeting.
9:18:02 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how long it took to lose the 93
attorneys mentioned by Representative Josephson.
Representative Josephson responded that Cori Mills
testified that 93 attorneys out of 143 attorneys had left
the Civil Division since 2018.
9:18:54 AM
Representative Thompson wondered if the attorneys who
worked for Legislative Legal Services would be affected by
the bill.
Representative Josephson indicated they were not included
as they were paid through the Legislative Affairs Division.
He thought that they were overworked and agreed that was
also a problem. It was a larger issue and the bill only
targeted one aspect of the problem.
Representative Thompson understood and would look into the
issue.
9:20:14 AM
Representative Edgmon recalled that the legislature was
adding an attorney within Legislative Legal Services and
was including a broad compensation package. He asked the
bill sponsor to provide perspective concerning high
turnover rates for attorneys in the criminal justice
system. The legislature had proposed several bills to
address turnover and he was convinced that the turnover
issue was endemic. He invited Representative Josephson to
comment.
Representative Josephson indicated he and Representative
Claman agreed with Representative Edgmon's opinion. Entry-
level attorneys in the state were often sent to rural
Alaska within their first six months of employment to
prosecute serious felonies. In bigger cities like
Anchorage, attorneys were placed into one area of focus
such as drugs or property. Whereas, in the rural areas of
Alaska they were required to handle all types of cases.
When he personally worked as an attorney in Kotzebue, he
had an overwhelming workload of over 800 cases per year.
New attorneys would simply not stick around due to the
conditions in rural Alaska, and the state needed both new
attorneys and experienced attorneys. He indicated the
committee would hear testimony in an upcoming meeting about
the emotional difficulty experienced by attorneys in these
situations. The administration was aware of the seriousness
of the issue and watching the committee hearing. He
reiterated that the sentiment expressed in the State
Affairs Committee was that a ten percent salary increase
for attorneys was inadequate.
9:25:25 AM
Representative Edgmon noted that deputy commissioners often
made a significantly higher wage but also worked
significanlty longer hours. He thought the workload was a
crisis.
Representative Josephson relayed that public defenders and
prosecutors had coalesced around the legislation and wanted
the system to work. They cared about their work and wanted
to stick around but could not afford to under the current
system.
9:27:06 AM
Representative Wool commended the bill sponsor for sharing
the information. He remarked that many other professions
were facing the same issues. For example, the state was
experiencing difficulty retaining teachers largely due to
issues with wages and benefits.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Representative Josephson for
presenting his bill. The committee would take a 10-minute
break to attend the Committee on Committees meeting.
9:28:20 AM
AT EASE
9:43:40 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked Ms. Shelly Willhoite to address the
fiscal note.
SHELLY WILHOITE, CHIEF BUDGET ANALYST, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, reviewed the fiscal
note by the Office of the Governor with control code WEdhh.
She relayed that the fiscal note reflected the costs of the
proposed 10 percent increase for attorneys. The fiscal note
amounted to just over $8 million. She read through the
figures on the fiscal note.
9:45:52 AM
Representative LeBon indicated there were a number of
vacancies that needed to be filled. He asked if the figures
for the 10 percent increase in the fiscal note assumed all
positions were filled.
Ms. Willhoite responded that the fiscal note did not
reflect vacancies.
Representative LeBon asked for clarification that the 10
percent increase did not reflect any vacancies in
anticipation that the increase might yield more successful
hires.
Ms. Willhoite would get back to the committee after she
checked with the analyst that ran the numbers.
9:47:17 AM
Representative Josephson thought it could be argued that
the total cost in the fiscal note would still be similar
even if vacancies were accounted for.
Ms. Willhoite responded that his perspective was valid. She
calculated a flat 10 percent based on the salaries of the
currently filled positions.
Representative LeBon asked the bill sponsor if the intent
of the bill was to increase the pay for all positions both
filled and unfiled.
9:49:01 AM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON,
asked Representative LeBon to repeat his question.
Representative LeBon restated his question. He was trying
to understand the fiscal note and wanted to know if the sum
reflected all authorized positions. He thought it would be
counterproductive to try to fill vacant positions without
raising the salaries.
Ms. Sorum-Birk responded that Representative LeBon was
correct and that the sum reflected all attorney positions
in relevant agencies.
9:50:12 AM
Ms. Willhoite noted that if a position was budgeted for, it
was included in the total.
HB 226 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.