Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
04/02/2019 11:30 AM House RULES
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 | |
| SB41 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 41-NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
11:31:30 AM
CHAIR KOPP announced that the only order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 41, "An Act relating to the number of superior
court judges in the third judicial district; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR KOPP noted that SB 41 is the same bill as HB 77, which is
presently in Rules.
11:32:46 AM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Office of
the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, presented SB
41. She stated that the proposed legislation would authorize
the addition of two judges to the number of Alaska Superior
Court judges authorized in statute; the two judges would be
seated in the Third Judicial District. She elaborated that
under SB 41, the Alaska Court System would be able to convert
two existing district court judgeships - one in Homer and one in
Valdez - to superior court trials sites. Ms. Meade explained
that the reason this request has been made is that both Homer
and Valdez are the last remaining single-judge locations not
served by a superior court judge.
MS. MEADE reviewed that a superior court judge has original
jurisdiction over any trial matter that arises in the state
while a district court judge has only limited jurisdiction. She
listed that which a superior court judge can handle: felonies;
domestic relations cases, such as child custody and divorce;
probate issues, such as mental commitments; and child in need of
aid cases. In contrast, a district court judge can handle only
misdemeanors and preliminary, emergency situations related to
child in need of aid cases; he/she cannot handle mental
commitments, divorce cases, and custody matters. She stated
that by staffing Homer and Valdez with a superior court judge,
those courts would be able to handle all cases that "walk
through the door."
MS. MEADE stated that the timing is perfect, because the Homer
district court judge has announced her retirement at the end of
the current fiscal year, and the district court judge seat in
Valdez is currently vacant, the judge there having recently been
appointed to the Juneau Superior Court. If SB 41 passes, the
Judicial Council will advertise these two openings as superior
court seats, rather than district court seats, which she said
would give the court system the flexibility it needs.
11:35:17 AM
MS. MEADE relayed that in Homer, the district court judge
handles all district court matters that are filed; however, any
superior court matters filed are handled by traveling judges
from Kenai, who travel to Homer for one week a month. She said
a video conferencing system was installed between the two courts
to cut down on the amount of travel necessary; however, there
are lots of hearings dealing with criminal matters and child in
need of aid where a judge needs to meet face-to-face in the
court room, and that affects the court schedules of the Kenai
judges and is not a sustainable way to handle cases.
MS. MEADE said that in Valdez the situation has been "similar
thought slightly different." She explained that the district
court judge [who had been there until recently] has served for a
long time and has been willing to handle some superior court
matters. By rule, the court can temporarily - "pro temp" -
allow a district court judge to handle superior court matters,
and the [erstwhile] judge of the Valdez District Court, along
with the one before him, has the qualifications to handle those
matters; therefore, there has not been as much travel necessary.
If that seat were filled with a new district court judge, then
the judges would have to be sent from Palmer to Valdez to attend
to superior court cases. She clarified, "So, though the problem
hasn't been as acute there because of the individual seated, it
would become acute with a new individual in that slot."
11:37:08 AM
MS. MEADE noted that the Supreme Court tries to be conservative
in what it asks from the legislature, and it has thought of
alternatives. She reiterated that as a means of minimizing
travel, video conferencing equipment had been installed in
Homer, and in Valdez there is video conferencing equipment that
connects that district court with Cordova and Glen Allen. She
restated that there are certain [cases] that require travel.
She said, "So, we think that right now, having those two seats
as superior court judges would help the local communities there,
but also provide flexibility really in the whole Third Judicial
District." For example, if a Palmer judge is busy with a long
criminal trial, a superior court judge in Valdez could, perhaps,
handle the child in need of aid cases for 4-6 weeks. She added,
"That person could help in Kodiak and other places, as well, and
we think that that is probably what's going to happen."
11:38:20 AM
MS. MEADE directed attention to the fiscal note in the committee
packet. She said a brand new superior court judge can cost
about half a million dollars, which includes the judge's salary
and staff, and the court, being conservative, would not ask for
that. However, with the proposed conversion of a superior court
judgeship, the new superior court judge can use the existing
chairs, computers, courtrooms, and staff that already exist in
Valdez and Homer; thus, the fiscal impact is less. She added
that the travel cost would be obviated, as well.
11:39:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, regarding staffing, asked about the
difference between a district court judge and superior court
judge.
MS. MEADE answered that typically superior court judges receive
a dedicated law clerk while district court judges share a law
clerk in Anchorage. She continued:
Other than that, tough, they need an in-court clerk
... to do all that work that's involved during that
preceding, and they ... each have a judicial assistant
to do administrative tasks and help them keep on
schedule and on task.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked, "Are these going to be, then, the
only two superior court judges that don't have those dedicated
staff, or is that solved some other way?"
MS. MEADE answered, "They will not be the only superior court
judges without a law clerk, which is the only difference in
staffing. In the Juneau Superior Court, we have two law clerks
for three superior court judges, so, they share resources there,
and what we expect for ... these individuals, both in Homer and
Valdez, is that they would share existing law clerk resources
from other judges." She explained that is because after looking
at the state's fiscal picture, the court is considering how to
be more conservative with the resources. She said, "So, the
Valdez judge, when he or she needs a law clerk, could contact
... the judges in Palmer and say, 'Hey, can one of your clerks
help me with this project?' and similarly for Kenai." She
added, "We do think that that will work and bring about the
appropriate result."
11:41:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON offered his understanding that superior
court judges receive more in retirement than do district court
judges, and he questioned whether that would mean "our
retirement costs" will be increasing "through the out years."
MS. MEADE offered her understanding that Representative Thompson
was asking what would happen in 20 years when the superior court
judge retires. She confirmed that a judge who received a larger
salary during his/her career would receive a larger benefit in
retirement, and superior court judges do make more than district
court judges.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON concluded that "it would be more
expensive for that retirement."
MS. MEADE responded that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON asked if a superior court judge's
retirement is based on a higher percentage of salary than is a
district court judge's retirement.
MS. MEADE answered no; all judges' retirements are based on the
number of years they served.
11:44:05 AM
CHAIR KOPP said nurses for sexual assault cases were located in
South Peninsula Hospital, and he traveled many times to that
hospital with the prosecutor. He said sometimes the prosecutor
anticipated addressing only misdemeanor arraignments but arrived
to discover there were felony arraignments to address but no
superior court judge present. That required the prosecutor to
drive back up the road and make a second trip back down the
peninsula with the superior court judge. Having a judge in
Homer and Valdez that can handle those felony cases would
prevent prosecutors from having to make those multiple trips,
which he said he foresaw as a savings to the state.
11:45:10 AM
CHAIR KOPP opened public testimony on SB 41. After ascertaining
that there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public
testimony on SB 41.
11:45:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON moved to report SB 41 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, SB 41 was reported out of the
House Rules Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 41 version A.pdf |
HRLS 4/2/2019 11:30:00 AM SJUD 2/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 41 |
| SB041-JUD-ACS-01-30-19.pdf |
HRLS 4/2/2019 11:30:00 AM SJUD 2/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 41 |
| SB041 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRLS 4/2/2019 11:30:00 AM SFIN 3/8/2019 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
SB 41 |