Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/23/2001 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 172 - COURT SYSTEM ANNUAL REPORT Number 1358 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 172(FIN), "An Act relating to an annual report by the court system to the public and the legislature." Number 1382 SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, Alaska State Legislature, spoke on behalf of the Senate Finance Committee, sponsor of SB 172. He explained that SB 172 would establish in statute an annual report from the Alaska Court System (ACS). Currently the ACS does an annual report but does so voluntarily because there is no statutory requirement. Simply, SB 172 will set in statute that there will be a requirement to provide an annual report to the legislature; the ACS could have leeway under this bill to continue with the existing report, as long as it provides the legislature with the specific information detailed in SB 172. He noted that some of the information required by SB 172 is not currently included in the annual report that the ACS provides voluntarily. That information includes additional information regarding the time it's taking to provide final disposition on cases in Alaska; specific information about the [status of] salary warrants of judges (currently, if a judge doesn't produce a final opinion within six months, his/her salary is withheld); and a reporting of travel expenses and per diem for judges and justices, similar to what is required of legislators and members of the executive branch. He concluded by stating that SB 172 has a zero fiscal note. SENATOR DONLEY, in response to questions, said that each year the administration and the legislature prepare reports on all the salaries, travel, and per diem for executive branch personnel and legislators, respectively. He also noted that the legislature [performs] an annual audit of state government, and that there is an annual budget report produced by the Legislative Finance Division. On the issue of withholding salary warrants, he explained that under existing law, "any appellant court where there's more than one member is exempt from the time limit factor of the salary warrants." All the law requires is for an initial decision to be made; there is no time limit for any final decision being made. REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH questioned why this legislation is necessary given that the [ACS] has been voluntarily providing reports since 1961. SENATOR DONLEY replied that it is because [the ACS] could just stop doing so at any time, and because he thinks it is really important that the public be guaranteed this information. He also noted that SB 172 requires information additional to what [the ACS] currently provides. Number 1588 REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH suggested that if the legislature simply asked it to do so, the [ACS] would continue providing the reports and include the additional information on a voluntary basis. He opined that this might be a situation in which legislation is not actually needed. SENATOR DONLEY said, "Hopefully this is legislation that won't be needed in the future, but it is a safeguard to prevent that eventuality from ever happening." With regard to the warrant information, he noted that about three or four years ago, he had contacted the Alaska Judicial Council (AJC) and asked why the warrant information was not provided with the analysis for judge retention. [The AJC] explained that they had asked for the information but the ACS would not provide it to them, even though [the AJC] is the body that is constitutionally empowered to make assessments regarding the retention of judges. He added that subsequent to that conversation, he received the information from the ACS, whereupon he provided it to the AJC. Although currently the ACS is providing this information to the AJC, he said, this is just an example showing that the ACS could at anytime - without this legislation - decide not to provide certain information. Number 1683 CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Deputy Administrative Director, Administrative Staff, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), clarified that it was not the ACS that refused to provide this information to the AJC, it was the Department of Administration (DOA). The ACS has always considered this information a public record. He pointed out, however, that the ACS receives the information from the DOA; once the information is in the ACS's possession, it is provided to anyone who makes a public records request. He explained that the [Alaska] Supreme Court produces an annual report and has done so since the very first year that the ACS has been in existence; the first annual report came out in 1960. After noting that the legislature received a copy of the "FY 2000 Annual Report" in January, he confirmed that the report is not produced because of a statutory mandate, but rather under the [Alaska] Supreme Court's constitutional authority to administer the judicial branch of government. In essence, this is the [Alaska] Supreme Court's annual message on judicial branch operations. MR. CHRISTENSEN noted that as originally drafted, SB 172 instructed the ACS to produce an annual report and include some of the information that is already in the annual report that [the ACS] provides, and add other information that is not currently provided. He said that the legislature is the best judge of what information it would consider useful; the legislature has the authority to instruct the ACS to provide statistical or other information related to court operations. Whereupon [the ACS] will provide the information required by SB 172 in report form. He pointed out that the ACS has submitted a zero fiscal note. He mentioned that there are several other examples in statute of reports the legislature requires of the ACS, such as travel information for justices of the Alaska Supreme Court and for judges of the Alaska Court of Appeals. MR. CHRISTENSEN noted, however, that the document that [the ACS] has identified for over 40 years as its annual report is the [Alaska] Supreme Court's message; this is akin to reports that "you" as individual legislators send to Alaskans describing "your" operations here in Juneau. And much as "you" are the final authority of what goes into "your" reports, he said, [the ACS] believes that the [Alaska] Supreme Court is the final authority for what goes into "this" particular document. The extra information that SB 172 would require [the ACS] to provide may very possibly be put into "this" report; in fact, Chief Justice Fabe assured Senator Donley several months ago that prior to the time the next annual report went into production, she would discuss with her colleagues including this extra information. Alternatively, the extra information that is required by SB 172 may be put in a separate report, which [the ACS] would publish and release as instructed per SB 172. Number 1814 MR. CHRISTENSEN offered the following as a technical amendment: Remove "annual" from page 1, line 5. In response to questions, he explained that the term "annual report" is almost considered a term of art, and that the ACS already produces an "annual report" and has done so for over 40 years. And although [the ACS] will be happy to give the legislature whatever kind of reports it wants, he reiterated that [the ACS] currently produces its document under the [Alaska] Supreme Court's constitutional authority to administer the judicial branch, and would therefore prefer that any information requested by legislature not be called an "annual report". He said that the extra information requested may be included in the annual report that the ACS already produces, or it may come in the form of a separate report; the intention of his suggested amendment is to allow [the ACS] flexibility. SENATOR DONLEY agreed that the intention of SB 172 is to leave the ACS with flexibility regarding terminology, and therefore he has no objection to Mr. Christensen's suggested amendment. Number 1900 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which would remove "annual" from page 1, line 5. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 1929 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSB 172(FIN), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations [and the accompanying fiscal note]. Number 1939 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected for the purpose of discussion. He said that one point he is always leery about is separation of powers. He acknowledged that the [ACS] did not have any objections to the requirements imposed via SB 172, but he pointed out that: We're here telling the court to do something, something that they're already doing. ... I know that when the court tells us to do things, even simple innocuous things like maybe striking language from the budget or something, we find that very troubling. ... I just think we ought to be a little bit sensitive to those poor five justices and all their minions. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the legislature, via SB 172, is not telling [the ACS] how to make judicial decisions; rather, the legislature is only telling the ACS what kind of information to provide. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ countered by saying, "Which is all they told us." He then withdrew his objection. Number 1983 CHAIR ROKEBERG asked whether there were any further objections. There being none, HCS CSSB 172(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|