Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/11/2019 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 | |
| Consideration of Governor's Appointee: Kevin Clarkson, Attorney General Designee, Department of Law | |
| Consideration of Governor's Appointee: Kelly Tshibaka, Commissioner Designee, Department of Administration | |
| Fy 20 Budget Overview: Department of Law | |
| Fy 20 Budget Overview: Judiciary | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 11, 2019
1:32 p.m.
1:32:22 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Tammie Wilson, Co-Chair
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Vice-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Gary Knopp
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Kevin Clarkson, Attorney General Designee, Department of
Law; Kelly Tshibaka, Commissioner Designee, Department of
Administration; Lacey Sanders, Budget Director, Office of
Management and Budget; Anna Kim, Administrative Services
Director, Department of Law; Doug Wooliver, Deputy
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Representative Kelly Merrick
SUMMARY
CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE: KEVIN CLARKSON,
ATTORNEY GENERAL DESIGNEE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE: KELLY TSHIBAKA,
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
FY 20 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LAW
FY 20 BUDGET OVERVIEW: JUDICIARY
Co-Chair Wilson invited Mr. Clarkson to the table.
^CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE: KEVIN CLARKSON,
ATTORNEY GENERAL DESIGNEE, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1:33:07 PM
KEVIN CLARKSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL DESIGNEE, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, introduced himself and provided a brief description of
his background. He was born in Salem, Oregon and was a
product of a law enforcement family. He attended Oregon
State University before going to Willamette University Law
School. After graduating he interview with law firms in
Portland and Seattle with the intention of staying in the
Northwest. However, the law firms he interviewed with had
filled their positions in the Northwest. The Law Firm of
Perkins Coie had an opening in their Anchorage office and
asked if he was interested. He figured he could work in
Anchorage for a couple of years and return to the
Northwest. He had been in Alaska since 1985. He reported
having 4 children, all born in Alaska, and 5 grandchildren.
He provided additional information about his family.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson had been practicing law
in Alaska for 34 years. The first 10 years of his career
were with Perkins Coie and Brena, Bell, and Clarkson. In
1995 he joined the law firm of Brena, Bell, and Clarkson
and worked there for 24 years before moving to his current
position as attorney general.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson had heard some concerns
over the previous couple of months that his experience was
limited to working on controversial constitutional issues
in cases that involved controversial social issues.
However, that type of work represented only about 10
percent of his practice. The other 90 percent involved
civil litigation work. He explained he had had the
opportunity to work for a wide variety of clients giving
him a broad scope of experience. He had grown to appreciate
a depth of experience from having to learn new things every
case. He represented clients ranging from individuals,
small businesses, Fortune 500 corporations, boroughs,
municipalities, electrical utilities, the Alaska
Legislature, groups of legislators, and the State of
Alaska. He had represented native corporations from a
variety of regions and air carriers, large and small. He
had represented the Alaska Bar Association and participated
in and chaired disciplinary and free arbitration panels for
the association. He continued to provide information
regarding his background in law.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson had not sought out the
position of attorney general. Prior to the election he had
been asked to help create a list of potential attorney
general candidates - he had not included his own name.
After the election the governor spoke to him at length and
urged him to take the position. He had been moved by the
governor's vision of what he wanted to accomplish for
Alaska. The governor wanted to protect Alaska's interest
and to protect public safety which he was moved by because
his dad had been a police officer. He thought it was an
opportunity to give back to the state. He asked members for
the honor of his confirmation.
1:42:36 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked Attorney General Designee Clarkson
for coming before the committee and for his willingness to
be considered for the position. He noted the Attorney
General Designee Clarkson having discussed his extensive
experience. He wondered if there was anything in his
background lacking that might be needed for the position of
attorney general.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson responded that he had
never worked as a prosecutor. Part of his duties as
attorney general was to supervise and manage the Criminal
Division of the Department of Law. In that respect, he was
not different than any other attorney that had come to the
job. However, he had managed a significant number of
people. The Department of Law was basically the largest law
firm in Alaska. He suggested that he was not applying for
the position of a line prosecutor but rather, the attorney
general. He felt comfortable with his management skills and
the talent within the Criminal Division. He reiterated his
lack of experience as a prosecutor.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what his main duties were as
attorney general.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson responded that the
duties of the attorney general were set in statute. The
delegates to the constitutional convention who created
Alaska's constitution did not include the attorney general.
The first legislature was left to create the position of
attorney general. When the legislature created the
position, the duties were defined as the legal advisor of
the governor and other state officers, advising the heads
of the departments and the governor (the chief executive of
the state). The statutes provided a list of commands for
the attorney general. His job was to represent the state in
all civil actions in which the state was a party, to
prosecute all cases involving the violation of state law,
and to defend and prosecute actions for the collection of
revenues for the state. There were other duties that would
arise as a matter of common law. He was basically the
attorney for the State of Alaska and for the Office of the
Governor. He was not the governor's personal attorney but
represented him in his official capacity as the chief
executive of the State of Alaska.
1:46:37 PM
Representative Josephson indicated he respected Attorney
General Designee Clarkson. He referred to a case that he
frequently used as an example when he taught constitutional
law, the Smith Decision. The case was out of Oregon and had
to do with the use of Peyote. Justice Scalia stated that
laws of general applicability, not aimed at prejudice
against any single group, should be respected and that
nothing relative to first amendment rights necessarily had
to accommodate that. He recalled that Justice O'Connor did
not like that; she wanted something more receptive to
individual rights. Justice Scalia specified that nothing in
the constitution prevented Oregon from banning Peyote even
for a religious purpose. He was providing background
because a number of decisions Attorney General Designee
Clarkson worked on had taken a different tact than Justice
Scalia. For instance, when the Municipality of Anchorage
took the position that landlords should not discriminate
against unmarried couples, he represented the opposing
view. Given the Smith Decision, he wondered how Attorney
General Designee Clarkson would evaluate his reasoning in
the matter. He referred to the Swanner Decision and the
Thomas Decisions.
1:48:53 PM
Attorney General Designee Clarkson replied that he had been
the attorney for the landlords. The arguments that they
were making were wholly consistent, in his view, with
Employment Division versus Smith. The other controlling
case was, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. versus the
City of Hialeah. At the time the case was initiated, the
Swanner case and the beginning of the Thomas case, there
was a federal statute called the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, which had been congress' response to the
Smith Decision. In the Smith Decision, the majority decided
that if a law was generally applicable and was neutral
towards religion, the law was valid. However, there was a
part of the Smith case that created exceptions to the rule
and lead to the application of heightened scrutiny in
analyzing whether the law was allowed under the First
Amendment Free Exercise Clause.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson explained that the
relevant question was whether the law applied to everyone
or whether there would be exceptions such that some people
did not have to comply with the law, but others did.
Another applicable question was whether a religion or
religiously motivated people were in the group that had to
comply. He indicated that the same argument was made on
behalf of the landlords, as the laws in Alaska and
Anchorage had exceptions to them. For example, a landlord
who was a bigot renting a room in their home or a shared
living space in Anchorage could avoid renting to a
minority. However, a religious landlord with a religious
motivation for not wanting to rent to someone were subject
to the law. There was an argument to be made that the law
was not generally applicable.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson argued that secondly, if
the law affected hybrid constitutional rights (i.e.
religion plus speech or religion plus property rights)
strict scrutiny would apply. In the case of the landlord,
there were multiple ways in which hybrid rights were
arguably triggered. He used speech as an example. The laws
at issue restricted their ability to speak. They could not
legally ask whether a person was married, a religiously
motivated question. He also used the Religious Freedom
Restoration act in his argument on behalf of his client
which applied as a statutory law of the land. He reported
prevailing in front of Judge Holland ruling in favor of the
landlords in the summary judgment. The Thomas case went to
the Ninth Circuit and he won in front of a three-judge
panel. In the Swanner case, he filed a cert petition for
Mr. Swanner to the US Supreme Court his clients. They
denied cert. However, there was a decent by Justice Thomas.
In his 5-page opinion he indicated that the landlords
should have one. He ultimately did not prevail in the Ninth
Circuit Court, not because of the merits of the case but
because of issue pertaining to standing and ripeness.
1:53:31 PM
Representative Josephson complimented the attorney
general's detailed response. He suggested that, previously,
Attorney General Clarkson had revisited certain cases
putting resources into them such as medically necessary
abortion. He wondered if he would use his authority as
attorney general and using state resources to continue to
revisit certain issues.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson responded to
Representative Josephson's comments regarding returning to
certain issues and public funding of abortion. He
respectfully thought Representative Josephson was
inaccurate. He had represented the Alaska Legislature in
the first decision written by Justice Fabe in 2001. The
court ruled that there was no obligation for the state to
fund elective abortions, non-medically necessary abortions,
or non-therapeutic abortions. The Alaska Legislature came
back and passed legislation defining medically necessary
abortions. He testified on the issue to help them
understand the details of the first decision. He had told
members that the court decision in its first decision in
2001 used the term, "medically necessary" or "therapeutic
abortion" 37 times. It was very focused that the state had
to pay for medically necessary abortions. The question was
whether the legislature could define what was medically
necessary that would trigger a payment of state Medicaid
funds. The legislature brought in testifiers, doctors from
around the country, to clarify what it would take for an
abortion to be medically necessary. The legislature passed
the law and he was asked to write an amicus brief.
Attorney General Clarkson responded to the notion of coming
back for a bite of the apple on certain cases. He clarified
that the one case he could think of was a case involving
parental involvement including parental consent and notice.
Attorney General Clarkson looked back to 1997, when the
legislature passed a parental consent law, there was no law
in Alaska about whether a parental consent law was
permissible. The other issue was that there was a decision
by the Alaska Supreme Court saying that abortion was
protected by the privacy provision of the Alaska
Constitution. There were several nuances that followed. The
legislature then passed a parental consent statute with
overwhelming support. The legislature had to override a
veto of Governor Knowles in order to put the law into
place. He suggested the law put Alaska in the mainstream
because 80 percent of the United States had parental
involvement laws. He was hired by the Alaska Legislature to
step along side of the Department of Law to defend the
statute. There was a summary judgement in the Superior
Count and an appeal heard in the Supreme Court. The state
won in Supreme Court reversing the original ruling. The
Superior Court Judge had thrown the statute out ruling it
unconstitutional. Two judges on the Supreme Court, Justice
Mathews and Justice Carpeneti thought the law was
constitutional and would have upheld it immediately as a
matter of law. However, the remaining three judges of the
Supreme Court thought a trial was necessary.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson told of going back down
to the Superior Court for trial. At the time he was still
representing the Alaska State Legislature. He tried the
case to present evidence on what the state's compelling
interests might have been, and whether those interests were
being pursued in the least restrictive means available to
the state. Judge Tanigan ruled that the statute was
unconstitutional. A second appeal took place in the Alaska
Supreme Court - the decision was 3 to 2 against the
statute. again Justice Mathews and Justice Carpeneti
thought the statute was constitutional. The other three
justices determined that the law was not constitutional
because they ruled it would be equally effective, but less
restrictive, for the state to have a parental notice law in
place. The stated in their decision that the Alaska
Constitution would permit a statutory scheme that ensured
that parents would receive notice so that they would become
engaged in their young daughter's decisions regarding the
issues of abortion and pregnancy. The court indicated it
was permissible to have a parental notice law in Alaska.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson elaborated that the
legislature attempted for two sessions to pass a parental
notice law without success. Afterwards, a group of folks
got together and by initiative passed a parental notice
law. Approximately 59 percent of people in Alaska approved
the law. He had been hired by the sponsors to step into the
case working alongside the Department of Law to defend the
parental notice law, which they did. The court later struck
the law down. It was not the law when he started, rather it
was the law when he finished because the law was made in
the cases he had worked on. He supposed a parental law was
permissible in Alaska, but not in the from that was passed
previously. He concluded that he came back to issues
because there were many avenues to pursue that the court
had made available to both the legislature and the people
of Alaska.
2:01:02 PM
Representative Josephson thought Attorney General Designee
Clarkson had made a good case that questions had not been
posed in any certain way and each matter was unique. He
commented that the record was that the Supreme Court had
frequently ruled against the attorney general's position.
He referenced the Obergefell decision, a case which allowed
gay marriage across the country. He cited an example and
asked the attorney general whether he would apply resources
at every opportunity in order to scratch every itch.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson responded that his job
as the attorney general was to defend laws passed by the
legislature. He affirmed that it was his job to uphold the
law no matter what it was.
Vice-Chair Johnston noted the courts had weighed in on the
dividend being an appropriation rather than a transfer. She
asked if the attorney general felt the finding had been
well established, or whether he felt he would need to take
another bite at the apple.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson responded that the
court's ruling in the Wielechowski case was currently in
Alaska law. He explained that when the money moved from the
Earnings Reserve Account to the dividend program, it moved
via appropriation and was subject to a veto based on the
decision by the Alaska Supreme Court. He indicated there
was a host of questions about how money was moved into and
out of the Permanent Fund. There were other accounts that
created nuances and questions regarding how money traveled
between accounts which might be fair game for analysis. As
far as the question addressed in the Wielechowski decision,
it was the law.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson continued that if
someone did not like the ruling of the court when it
interpreted the constitution, the solution would be to
amend the constitution. He noted that the governor had put
forward an amendment to the constitution that would lock in
the calculation of the dividend absent a change by the
legislature and then an approval by the people. The other
part of the amendment would be that the money would move by
a transfer without being an appropriation. If the amendment
were to pass, it would be the next bite of the apple. It
would change the constitution allowing a transfer of money
without an appropriation.
2:06:35 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston noted that Attorney General Designee
Clarkson's tie was purple reminding her of a child from
Kotzebue dying far too young. Senator Dan Sullivan had
started the Choose Respect movement represented by purple.
She inquired whether his office supported the choose
Respect movement and asked if his office would be making
the effort the following day to wear purple on behalf of
the movement.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson confessed it was a
sentimental tie he bought with his wife while traveling. He
indicated that one of his priority issues to address was
human trafficking. He mentioned that over 43 percent of the
state's sexual assault victims were Alaska native women.
There was a large number of missing and unaccounted for
women in the state. He reiterated that human trafficking
was a priority issue for him.
Representative Carpenter relayed that it had been suggested
to him that the state had prosecutors that cut deals or
were lenient in the plea bargaining process with criminals.
He wanted to know what the attorney general could do to
restore some respect for the law as it was written. He
asked for Attorney General Designee Clarkson for his
comments.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson responded that although
it was not his job to approve every plea bargain, the
Criminal Division had a set of standards by which it
operated. There were very talented folks in key positions
within the Department of Law. He mentioned John Skidmore,
Director of the Criminal Division; Ron Henderson, the
Deputy Director of the Criminal Division; and the district
attorney. They oversaw the plea bargaining process. He
referred to the Justin Snyder case and reported that any
plea bargaining from a sexual offense down to a non-sexual
offence required his approval.
2:10:54 PM
Representative Tilton asked for the attorney general's
thoughts on restructuring the Ninth Circuit Court and what
that might mean for resource development in the state.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson responded that he had
not considered the issue in his current position. He
understood the issue and thought Senator Sullivan and
Senator Murkowski had raised the issue on a number of
occasions. He suggested that it was a question for congress
to address. He could not do more than comment as any other
person might. The Ninth Circuit Court was the largest
circuit in the country, encompassed the largest number of
states and the largest territory, and handled the largest
number of cases than any other circuit in the country.
There were several arguments as to why to split it up as
well as several historical reasons why it had been held
together. He did not have a personal position on the issue.
Representative Tilton asked about his take on federal
overreach and how he could help Alaska.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson replied that there were
a number of cases where Alaska was working cooperatively
with the federal government. There were also areas where
the federal government stepped on the right of the state
and what Alaska was promised when it became a state. Some
of the areas of federal overreach related to the
development and control of Alaska's natural resources and
its land. He thought it was very important for Alaska's
rights to control its resources and for its lands to be
protected. He would not hesitate to step up to protect
Alaska's interest in those cases. He indicated Governor
Dunleavy shared his sentiments.
2:12:44 PM
Representative Josephson noted there were several attorneys
that were not retained after the election. He asked how
Attorney General Designee Clarkson viewed the issue of the
First Amendment.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson believed very strongly
in the First Amendment. He had worked on First Amendment
and free speech related cases in the past. He explained
that public employees had a right to free speech. However,
there were limits to that free speech. They had to be
speaking on their own behalf not on behalf of the state or
within the course and scope of their duties as an attorney
for the state. They had to be speaking on an issue of
public concern. He also believed there was such a thing as
conduct unbecoming of an assistant attorney general. A
person could be exercising their right to free speech but
conducting themselves in a way that was absolutely
dishonorable and reflected poorly on the Department of Law.
He thought it was fair to take such things into account. He
thought public employees had the right to free speech but,
there were responsibilities that accompanied it.
Representative Josephson mentioned that the Department of
Law used to have a robust oil and gas division, but it was
now under the Department of Natural Resources. It had a
synergistic staff that worked on complicated issues. He
wondered if the attorney general had any concern that the
Department of Law lacked such capacity, particularly if
there were to be litigation regarding the governor's bill
on property and equipment tax.
Attorney General Designee Clarkson indicated that in the
prior week the department had decided to re-form the oil
and gas division within the Department of Law. The action
would be a reversal of the action taken by the previous
attorney general, Attorney General Richards, when he
eliminated the oil and gas division and combined them
within DNR. He was going to re-staff the division, as it
was an important area for Alaska to have very qualified
people within the Department of Law representing the
state's interest.
Co-Chair Wilson reminded members that signing the report
for Attorney General Designee Kevin Clarkson in no way
reflected an individual's approval or disapproval of the
appointee. The committee's report would accompany the
nominations that would be forwarded to the full legislature
for confirmation or rejection. In accordance with
AS 24.60.130 the House Finance Committee, having reviewed
the qualifications for the governor's appointment of
attorney general, would move Mr. Clarkson's name to the
full legislature for confirmation.
^CONSIDERATION OF GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEE: KELLY TSHIBAKA,
COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
2:17:02 PM
KELLY TSHIBAKA, COMMISSIONER DESIGNEE, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, was born and raised in Anchorage. Most of
her family still lived in Alaska. She spent many winter
weekends in the Conoco Philips Tower as a child helping her
mom with projects. Her mom would have her look through long
spools of paper with holes on the side highlighting any
number above a certain amount. That was the start of her
training as an auditor. Her mom taught values for
accountability and fiscal responsibility. Her father was an
electrician with ATU which became ACS. He was a labor
worker with IBEW. Her father taught her the values
resulting from a team staying united and how to challenge
authority in a respectful way. She loved growing up in
Alaska. She played hockey, hunted, and ate moose tongue
sandwiches. She took classes at the University of Alaska
Anchorage and was in several theatre productions. She was a
pitcher of a softball team winning a championship one
summer. In that summer she learned that no position was
more valuable than any other position on a team because the
only way to win was by working together.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka continued that after
graduating from Steller she attended Texas A and M
University and, for a summer she worked for Senator Ted
Stevens on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee. She
then attended Harvard Law School and, after law school she
joined the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector
General (OIG). Her career had been in the OIGs in
Washington D.C. She explained that the OIGs were in just
about every federal agency. They did internal affairs
looking for waste, fraud, and abuse. They helped the
agencies become more efficient and effective primarily
through investigations and audits and multi-disciplinarian
reviews. At the Department of Justice she worked on complex
cases like the abuse of Arabs and Muslims detained after
the September 11th terrorist attacks. She led that review
and eventually, the case was heard before the United States
Supreme Court.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka relayed that she also
oversaw audits and investigations of Department of Justice
programs and operations and she assisted in managing more
than 400 employees nationwide. After the Department of
Justice OIG she joined the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI) just after it was starting up.
After the 911 Commission found that the intelligence
community needed an agency that oversaw the 17 agencies in
the intelligence community. She explained that the reason
911 happened was because the intelligence agencies did not
coordinate together.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka suggested that the way to
solve a bureaucracy problem was by creating more
bureaucracy. As a result ODNI was established. It included
agencies like the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA,
the NGO, the FBI, the NRO, the State Department, and
others. At ODNI she served as the legal counsel for the OIG
and helped to start up the office. In her role she
investigated misconduct by presidential appointees,
participated in projects like improving the process for
putting peoples names on the terrorist watch list, and she
evaluated the ODNI culture, efficiency, and effectiveness
at its startup. She briefed the Director of National
Intelligence about projects and successfully advocated for
the legislation that eventually established the
intelligence community and Inspector General in statute. It
was a 5-year project that required coordinating the
Inspectors General across the intelligence community as
well as the general counsels, White House staffers, and the
congressional oversight committees.
2:21:17 PM
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka continued that following the
ODNI OIG, she joined the ODNI's Civil Liberties and Privacy
Office as a lawyer. She participated in developing guidance
for the entire intel community on how to collaborate in
electronic environments on civil liberties and privacy
issues, how to use social media in trying to find known and
suspected terrorists, and how to work on research projects
knowing where the limits were and the civil liberties and
privacy limits in the research projects.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka shared that afterword she
joined the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) where she served
as the chief investigator and legal counsel. She eventually
became the acting inspector general for the trade
commission. She led her team to complete high-risk, core
mission reviews at an agency that had a $300 million budget
and 1,200 employees. There she examined how the FTC was
doing at its mission of protecting consumers. Her team also
investigated allegations made by Chairman Darrell Issa when
he was the head of the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee. He alleged that FTC attorneys conspired
to fabricate evidence to increase the FTC's successful
enforcement options. In addition her team performed
security audits, financial statement audits, performance
inspections, and investigations of misconduct. It was the
bread and butter of OGI work.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka relayed that most recently
she founded and established the Office of the Chief Data
Officer for the United States Postal Service OIG. As the
chief data officer she served on a 9-person executive team
responsible for overseeing the United States Postal
Service. The postal service did $70 billion in revenue
every year, had more than 620,000 employees, and over $13
billion in contracts. In contrast, the OIG had over 1,000
employees and $270 million. It was impossible to do
effective oversight of the postal service with the small
number of employees. Her team found a way do conduct
oversight through analytics. Through using data analytics,
her team was able to find cost savings and efficiencies and
know how to look for misconduct and risk. In the previous
year, the team's analytics led to $1.9 billion in financial
impact, $179 million in cost avoidances, 225 criminal case
outcomes, and were able to do more with less. One of the
things the team accomplished was to use analytics to start
finding opioids in the mail. She noted Alaska's opioid
problem and her excitement to see what Alaska could do with
data analytics. Her team was able to start developing
models to see opioids moving in 5 billion parcels coming
into U.S. boarders every year.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka indicated that her OIG
background had shaped how she would approach being
commissioner at the Department of Administration. She would
promote efficiency and effectiveness, pursue innovations
and cost savings, and achieve results.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka relayed that on a personal
note she met her husband in law school and, they moved to
Washington D.C. together. Their initial goal was to pay off
law school debt and become powerful lawyers but, their
hearts were changed in the early years. They became
Christians and their faith took a very different form.
Instead of becoming leaders, they became servants. They
became pastors and started a church in all of their free
time. They decided to focus on developing leaders, healing
people from trauma and addiction, focusing on orphans,
refugees, and helping women and children who were victims
of human trafficking. They had vision for people beyond
where they were and would like to help them become who they
wanted to be. Whether people or organizations, she loved
helping people become who they had always wanted to be. She
noted seeing organizations of collections of people with a
shared purpose. She enjoyed helping organizations become
who they have always wanted to be. In preparing for the
confirmation hearings she had the opportunity to meet with
members of the committees ahead of time. The meetings had
given her a chance to learn about the issues important to
them and answer questions on a wide range of topics.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka conveyed that one of the
common questions asked by House Finance Committee members
was why she wanted the job. She believed Alaska was an
extraordinary place filled with extraordinary people. She
thought Alaska and Alaskans were facing an extraordinary
crisis. She was inspired to go home because of a visionary
leader who wanted to make Alaskans safer, more prosperous,
and fiscally healthy; a leader who really wanted to turn
Alaska's extraordinary crisis into an extortionary
comeback. That was why, after Governor Dunleavey won the
election, she sent her resume into the office. She wanted
to go home and help the state that she loved.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka recalled that initially she
was brought onboard in January as a policy advisor to the
governor to do reviews of different policies, programs, and
operations in the state that could become more efficient
and effective. However, later she was humbled and honored
when the governor asked her to serve as the Commissioner of
the Department of Administration. She believed her skill
set and experience could add greater value in the role as
the Commissioner. She loved Alaska and its residents. She
came home to help and to serve. As the commissioner of the
Department of Administration she would help the department
to become the best it could be. By doing so, the agencies
of the State of Alaska would be better able to serve
Alaskans. She thanked the committee and was available for
questions.
2:26:27 PM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard shared the commissioner's
love for moose tongue sandwiches. She thanked the
commissioner for taking the time to visit her legislative
office. She reported that in her district in the Mat-Su
Borough the local government had faced a significant
cyber-attack leaving the Mat-Su Borough government at a
standstill. In order to fight the attack, the borough had
to spend millions of dollars to fix a very complicated
situation. She was aware of cyber-attacks happening all
over the U.S. She wondered how the commissioner would
challenge the Department of Administration to address
cyber-attacks.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka thought that the information
security environment that the state had needed to be
strengthened. She had met with the chief information
security officer recently to discuss where the state was
and what steps would be taken going forward. He had done a
thorough assessment of where the state was. She thought the
state would have to make investment in the area of security
and, the state would need additional man-power. She thought
Alaska had a way of maturing itself in security.
Vice-Chair Ortiz thanked the commissioner for coming to the
table. He was impressed with her experience, especially at
the federal level. He quarried how she would bring
efficiency and results to DOA. He asked her to define
results.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka had gone through the
department's measurements and objectives used by the Office
of Management and Budget to decide budgets and results. She
intended to meet with her directors to discuss and clarify
what the department was going to achieve. She thought they
were thin. She wanted to map out a strong stretegic plan
for DOA to define what the department was going to do. She
wondered if the department would pursue cost savings by
cutting and trimming, provide better services to Alaskans,
or cut down on the unfunded obligations in Division of
Retirement and Benefits. She continued that she would look
at whether or not the Public Defender's Agency was cutting
down on the backlog of cases, providing better services.
There were several things that could be measured. She
thought it was important to figure out what was being
measured and how. It took energy to measure things. She
suggested that sometimes measuring came at the cost of
doing things. She thought one or two measures for each of
the divisions was not sufficient enough to consider it a
result. She had some ideas but, she did not want to impose
them on her directors. It had to be a buy-in process. She
returned to her softball analogy indicating the team had to
work together.
2:30:55 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted her comments about being in a time
of extraordinary crisis. He asked her to clarify her
meaning.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka replied that when she looked
at where the state was financially and saw the state had so
little reserves along with a great need for spending she
considered it a financial crisis. She also looked at the
state's ratings compared to other states. She was concerned
that Alaska ranked 50th in several areas. It was not what
she wanted for Alaskans. She also suggested the state was
in a cultural crisis, as many of the Native Alaskan
cultures were dying out. It was more than a linguistics
crisis, it was a cultural crisis. She suggested that across
the board the state was in crisis. She highlighted other
areas in crisis including public safety and education.
Considering the amount of resources the state had to work
with of between $10 billion to $11 billion to spend on a
population of about 750,000 she thought Alaskans should be
living like royalty. It was a math problem that did not add
up to her. She thought the state could turn its boat around
with some tweaks and modifications to certain programs and
operations. She was energized rather than discouraged. She
thought the problem could be solved easily. The goal was to
figure out how to solve the problem.
2:32:52 PM
Vice-Chair Johnston believed everyone's crisis was
someone's opportunity. She wanted to say that presently
Alaska had great opportunities to make changes. She felt
that the Department of Administration was the fabric of the
State of Alaska's government. She liked the idea of
enlarging the state's dashboards and potentially having
public input about improvements and efficiencies. She
mentioned that the commissioner had said something while in
her office about transformation. She was always looking for
transformation. She recalled Commissioner Designee Tshibaka
stating that her approach to transformation was customer
service. She asked her to provide detail on her previous
comment and how it would move the state.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka explained that DOA existed
to provide efficient and effective support services to the
rest of the agencies within the State of Alaska so they
could better serve Alaskans. She believed the first thing
the department needed to focus on was improving its
customer service. She did not think customer service had
been consistent or proven effective. She elaborated that
when the state improved its customer services it would
build trust with all of the other agencies. When trust was
established it would be much easier to do things such as
getting the departments to give all of their resources for
the shared services model, for example. The state had
intended for years to build an example of a model
government platform which minimalized the redundancy of
effort existing within travel, procurement, mail, and other
services. Centralizing the services within DOA would result
in cost savings and efficiencies. However, it had not been
effective, in part, because the customer service return
from DOA had not been present. She argued the importance of
customer service.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka also believed automation was
a key to cutting back on lost time and quality. She
continued to explain that much of the state's processes
were manually intensive and involved paperwork which made
it more difficult to track, modify, or apply quality
control. There was a huge amount of money lost if
everything was not done consistently and electronically.
She mentioned automating performance reviews and doing them
at the same time of year. Standardized performance reviews
at the same time of year would help with recruitment,
retention, efficiencies, and cost savings. She also wanted
to focus on doing new employee onboarding in an automated
way. She noted the stack of paperwork she personally had to
complete upon her employment with the state. She mentioned
benefit selection process having to fill out paperwork
that, in turn, someone had to input for the state. She
could only imagine the benefits of putting such processes
into a digital format. as the commissioner wanted to focus
on customer service and automation within the department.
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the department currently had
electronic signature an approval capabilities on computers.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka replied that currently the
department was implementing DocuSign, an electronic
signature, which would result in a significant cost savings
to the state.
2:38:54 PM
Representative Josephson asked, if she was to receive an
order of the court to enforce a judgement, whether she
would do so or seek a stay appealing the order. He asked if
she would do one of the things he mentioned. Commissioner
Designee Tshibaka responded that she would either enforce
the order or use the legal process to challenge it.
Representative Josephson respected her zeal relative to her
work with the Inspector General. He had received something
from her office. He read a portion of the communications:
"There are about 6 percent of the State of Alaska
employees on Workmen's Comp currently. This presents
an opportunity to use data analytics to search out
potential fraud issues."
Representative Josephson was concerned that the
commissioner's communication viewed state employees in an
adversarial way. The state was known for its Veteran
population and for its strong public and private union
sector. He was alarmed by the email.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka appreciated Representative
Josephson bringing his concerns to her attention. She noted
that the day of the email she had gone around and talked
with several legislators. She had discussed the potential
of doing data analytics with some of them. They had asked
in what realm the state would do analytics. In response,
she noted how she had used data analytics successfully in
healthcare fraud at the postal service. She had used it in
the area of workers' compensation. By no means did she
suggest that several people in workers' compensation were
committing fraud. There were some people in workers'
compensation who committed fraud. She had used data
analytics successfully to indicate where fraud was
occurring, specifically to target people who committed
fraud rather than looking at everyone. The process was more
accurate. She could not remember who she had and had not
spoken to and wanted to get back with a specific accurate
number. She respected state employees. She was just
circling back with the specific percentage number that she
had discussed in some of her meetings. She continued that a
place where she had found hundreds of thousands of dollars
in cost savings, through the use of analytics, was in
healthcare programs like workers' compensation.
2:42:33 PM
Representative Knopp had enjoyed his conversation with the
commissioner in his office. Since their visit, he had
watched the interview in her confirmation hearing in the
House State Affairs Committee and she had been asked if she
would call someone out if they broached a privacy question.
He was concerned about the fact that her response went
longer than it needed to without purpose. He was bothered
by her response immensely. In light of the fact that the
Minority Leader on the House Floor was prepared for a
response and other members of House Finance Committee had a
copy of the constitution highlighted in advance, he
wondered whether she had been a willing and active
participant in an organized effort of public shaming of the
Co-Chair of the House State Affairs Committee.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka responded, "Not in any way."
She indicated she was very confused by his question because
no one would have had any way of knowing what she was going
to say.
Co-Chair Wilson directed the members to be very cautions,
as a simple misunderstanding had already been addressed in
another committee.
Representative Knopp responded that he had perceived the
commissioner's reply as very excessive to a situation. He
reiterated his concern and did not want the same issue to
arise going forward. He had asked the question because he
was unsettled by what he had witnessed.
Co-Chair Wilson relayed that in the second part of the
House State Affairs Committee hearing she was impressed by
the commissioner designee and Representative Fields being
able to take care of their misunderstanding and how they
handled the issue publicly.
Representative Tilton had a question regarding
public-private partnerships such as the state had with the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). She wondered if the
commissioner intended to continue or look for other areas
in which the state could have such a partnership that would
be a cost savings to the state. Commissioner Designee
Tshibaka understood the public-private partnership was
doing well. She wanted to see data before making any
decisions going forward.
2:46:55 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz noted her commitment to finding
efficiencies including a centralization of services. He
asked if she thought the model worked for all of the
different departments. He used the Department of Fish and
Game (DFG) as an example. He wondered if a department would
be impeded in meeting its goals by centralizing services.
He asked her to comment.
Commissioner Designee Tshibaka answered that there was an
assessment done in 2015 of the services the department had
chosen to move into shared services. The ones the
department had started on had resulted in great
efficiencies and cost savings. The department would
continue down the list examining whether there was a
benefit in centralizing services. It did not always make
sense to centralize certain services. Alaska would have to
decide what worked best for Alaska. Presently, the services
being centralized made sense.
Representative Josephson mentioned the commissioner wanting
to see strong evidence in advance of any effort to
privatize any public service. He asked if she would commit
to making reports and any evidence as transparent and
public as possible. Commissioner Designee Tshibaka
responded that if the information was able to be made
transparent, it would be made public.
Representative Josephson added that in the instance of DMV,
a profit maker, the department considered that while it
could be privatized, there might be an advantage to not
doing so. He suggested sharing the success of revenue with
the general fund.
Co-Chair Wilson asked whether the department had added any
new positions. Commissioner Designee Tshibaka asked about a
timeline. Co-Chair Wilson responded, "Since January 15th."
She clarified that what she meant as a new position was a
new Position Control Number (PCN). Commissioner Designee
Tshibaka would get back to the committee with a precise
answer.
Co-Chair Wilson thanked the commissioner for appearing
before the committee and looked forward to working with
her. Co-Chair Wilson reminded members that signing the
report for Commissioner Kelly Tshibaka in no way reflected
an individual's approval or disapproval of the appointee.
The committee's report would accompany the nominations that
would be forwarded to the full legislature for confirmation
or rejection. In accordance with AS 24.60.130 the House
Finance Committee, having reviewed the qualifications for
the governor's appointment of the Commissioner of
Administration, would move Ms. Tshibaka's name to the full
legislature for confirmation. She invited testifiers from
the Office of Management and Budget to the table for the
next presentation.
^FY 20 BUDGET OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF LAW
2:51:55 PM
LACEY SANDERS, BUDGET DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET, introduced herself.
ANNA KIM, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, introduced herself and began the PowerPoint
presentation: "FY 20 Governor's Amended Budget: Department
of Law."
Ms. Kim referred to the chart on slide 3: "FY2020 Budget:
Department of Law ($ Thousands)." She explained that the
slide showed the Department of Law's budget in general
funds, federal funds, and other funds comparing the FY 19
management plan budget to the FY 20 governor's amended
budget. The FY 19 management budget was made up of $54.5
million in general funds (GF), $31.3 million in other
funds, and $1.5 million in federal funds. The FY 20
governor's amended budget was made up of $52.7 million in
GF, $32.0 million in other funds, and $1.5 million in
federal funds.
Ms. Kim moved to slide 4: "FY2020 Budget: Department of Law
Snapshot ($ Thousands)" which provided a snapshot of
different budget items in the budget. The first was a fund
change for $750,000 GF reduction and increased interagency
(IA) receipts related to billing of legal services in the
Civil Division. The second bullet was statewide support; an
executive branch travel reduction of 50 percent in the
amount of $190,100 GF. The third item was an increase of
$307,600 GF fully funding the positions added in the
previous year in the criminal and civil divisions. The last
item on the slide was a one-time item (OTI) removal of $1.2
million for the North Pole remediation.
Co-Chair Wilson referred back to the criminal and civil
division positions. She inquired about the purpose of the
positions and the problem the legislature was trying to
solve. Ms. Sanders responded that her question would get
answered further into the presentation.
Ms. Kim continued to slide 5: "FY2020 Budget: Change
Summary ($ Thousands): Maintain capacity to accommodate
change in rate structure." She explained that the slide
provided more detail about the fund change of $750,000
reducing GF and increasing IA. She provided a paragraph on
the rate calculation and how it was developed. She also
provided what the department's rates were in FY 18 and
FY 19 for the attorney and paralegal and the department's
desired increase in rates.
Ms. Kim addressed the pie chart on slide 6 showing a 50
percent travel reduction for the executive branch. The
slide showed how the reduction would affect the department.
The slide showed the breakdown of impacts to the criminal,
civil, and administration and support divisions.
2:55:11 PM
Ms. Kim discussed slide 7: "FY2020 Budget: Change Summary
($ Thousands): Fully Fund Positions from the prior year:
Total $307.6 General Funds." She offered that the slide
showed more detail about the positions being fully funded
in the base in the year. The total was $307,600 GF. She
read the list on the slide:
Fully Fund Positions from the prior year: Total $307.6
General Funds [$ Thousands]
• 2nd Judicial District fully fund 1 prosecutor in
Kotzebue $53.7
• 3rd Judicial District fully fund 2 prosecutors and
1 support staff in Anchorage $81.4
• 4th Judicial District fully fund 1 prosecutor and
1 support staff in Bethel $77.6
• Criminal Appeals/Special Litigation fully fund
statewide drug prosecutor $41.2
• Commercial & Fair Business fully fund 1 attorney
to perform consumer protection $53.7
Co-Chair Wilson mentioned the 45 percent of inmates sitting
in jail and awaiting prosecution. She wondered if the
increases helped to lower the percentage.
Ms. Kim replied that she was unsure if she could fully
answer her question. She believed the department was making
an impact. In the last couple of years the legislature had
provided the department some additional resources including
the funding that the department was hoping to receive with
SB 32 [Legislation proposed by the governor in 2019
regarding crimes, sentencing, mental illness, and
evidence.] She thought the department would continue to
make an impact.
Co-Chair Wilson suggested that perhaps someone from the
Department of Corrections should answer the question. She
pointed out that DOC continued to grow and, individuals
that were unsentenced were waiting to find out whether or
not they were guilty. She wondered how to reduce the
percentage. She would be posing the same question to the
court. She wondered if the Department of Law could get back
to her with specifics about how the positions helped to
lower the numbers in specific areas and about a plan going
forward on how to reduce the number further. Ms. Sanders
would follow-up with the individual divisions to see if
caseloads could be tied to the specific positions and
respond back about their impacts. Co-Chair Wilson would
appreciate knowing what the money did for the state and
knowing what else the state was lacking.
Vice-Chair Johnston referred to slide 5. She asked if the
interagency receipt increases were mainly federal funds.
Ms. Sanders replied that the receipts were charges that
were made to each agency. If the Department of Health and
Social Services had federal receipts that might pay for
their costs, it would be federal funds. The agency that was
being provided the service would utilize the funds from
their existing budgets to pay for the services.
Vice-Chair Johnston referred to slide 7. She asked about
OMB's reference to being fully funded. She asked for
clarity. Ms. Kim replied that the reference was fully
funding positions that were provided in the prior year and
were 75 percent funded. The numbers reflected the
additional 25 percent to be 100 percent fully funded.
Ms. Kim advanced to slide 8 " FY2020 Budget: Change Summary
($ Thousands): Extend Outside Counsel related to the North
Pole Remedial Action." The slide reflected the extension of
the outside counsel for North Pole remediation. She
explained that the department was proposing to extend the
trial date which was currently set in October. She believed
the date had been ongoing. She concluded the presentation.
^FY 20 BUDGET OVERVIEW: JUDICIARY
2:59:42 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, introduced the PowerPoint presentation: "Alaska
Court System Overview." He began with the court system's
mission statement which was to resolve all cases that came
before the system in a way that was efficient, fair, and
consistent with the law. The Alaska Court System tried to
be expeditious in how it carried out its duties and tried
to be accessible to all parties.
Mr. Wooliver noted that in lean budget years the areas in
which the court system struggled were access and
expediency. For example, the court was closed on Friday
afternoons leaving the court less accessible. The system
had substantially less employees than it used to have
taking longer to do things as expeditiously. The mission
statement reflected the Alaska Court System's goals and was
used as a measure.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 2: "Judiciary's Share of Total
Agency Operations (GF Only)." He indicated he had a number
of charts reflecting where the court system had been and
where it was going. The first chart showed the changes in
the court system's budget in the last several years. The
chart was shown in general fund (GF) dollars. The budget
consisted of about 95 percent GF. Many of the charts looked
similar. The chart reflected the system's overall budget.
Mr. Wooliver noted there were three main drivers to the
increase in the budget over the years. First, over time the
legislature had approved additional staff and additional
judges as workloads demanded. Another item that had added
to the increased budget of the court system was the
statewide salary adjustments approved by the legislature
over the years. The other area that had resulted in an
increase to the budget occurred in 2011. The Co-Chair of
the House Finance Committee at the time was Representative
Mike Hawker. He decided it made sense to put all of the
funding for the Therapeutic Courts within the court
system's budget. There used to be funding in the Department
of Law for their attorneys, the Public Defender's office
for their attorneys, and the Department of Health and
Social Services for treatment costs. As the popularity of
Therapeutic Courts grew, Representative Hawker thought it
made sense to put all of the Therapeutic Court's money in
one place to allow for better tracking of what money was
being spent. It was not new money but, it all went into the
Alaska Court System's budget. In the previous few years
beginning in FY 16, the department had smaller and smaller
budgets until the prior two years which he would discuss
further.
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 3: "Judiciary: Line Items
(All Funds)." He indicated the chart reflected another way
to look at the same growth as the previous slide but was
broken down by line item. He highlighted that the
department was mostly a personnel cost-driven operation.
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 4: "Judiciary Appropriations
(GF Only)." He commented that the chart showed another way
of looking at some of the same information. He pointed to
the bottom of the slide where he added a line representing
the Therapeutic Courts portion represented by the blue
line. He highlighted the lines slightly above zero
representing the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the
Judicial Council. Both were within the judicial branch but
independent of the court system. He suggested the structure
was similar to the Office of Victim's Rights being within
the legislative branch but separate from what the
legislature did. The Commission of Judicial Conduct and the
Judicial Council were separate from the court but were
within the judicial branch.
3:04:05 PM
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 5: "Judiciary Appropriations
(All Funds)," which showed the same chart but with all
funds. He reiterated that because the Alaska Court System
was almost entirely funded with GF dollars, the charts
looked very similar.
Mr. Wooliver reviewed slide 6: "Judiciary: Salary
Adjustment Increases and Personal Services Costs (All
Funds)." He explained that the slide showed salary
adjustments and reflected how much the court system spent
on salaries. He noted the primary driver of the cost
increase was for additional judges and staff to meet
workload demands in various court locations. The blue bar
reflected the cost of living adjustments the legislature
approved for members of the judicial branch.
Mr. Wooliver scrolled to slide 7 which showed the total
position numbers. He highlighted that the position numbers
had dropped. He indicated the department was down a number
of employees and was asking for additional employees in the
FY 20 budget.
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 8: "Judiciary: Total Funding
Comparison by Fund Group." He reported that the slide, like
others, showed that the Judiciary budget was almost
entirely funded by GF. The other categories of funding were
tiny and did not change very much.
Co-Chair Wilson asked when the last time the court system
raised its filing fees. Mr. Wooliver responded that the
department had changed the court filing fees twice in the
recent past. About 2 years ago the fees were raised at the
request of the legislature as well as having been raised 2
years prior to that.
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 9 without comment.
Mr. Wooliver thought the information on slide 10: "UGF
Budget Changes FY 16 - FY 19," was more interesting than
the charts. The chart was a lookback. He reminded members
that in FY 16 the state started cutting budgets in all
departments. The slide showed the budget cuts in FY 16,
FY 17, and FY 28. They added up to about $10.9 million. For
the court system's overall budget the cuts were offset by
the salary increases that the legislature approved in those
years. However, because the salary increase amount matched
the amount the department received, the system still needed
to find $10,9 million in savings until FY 19. In FY 19 the
department got a .6 percent increase which he would discuss
in more detail later.
Mr. Wooliver indicated that slide 11: "Alaskans Served in
2018" was added at the request of the legislature. The
court system was asked to look at how it served Alaskans
and how many Alaskans it served. He thought there were a
number of ways to measure how the department served
Alaskans. He wanted to talk about three specific items on
the slide. First, he pointed to the 7,022 contacts through
the Family Law Self-Help Center. He elaborated that more
and more in Alaska and other parts of the country people
showed up in court without lawyers. Currently, in the court
system's family law cases (Divorce, Dissolution, and child
custody cases) over 85 percent had at least one party who
was unrepresented by an attorney. He added that for post-
judgement motions, such as motions to modify child custody
or motions to modify child support, the percentage of
people without lawyers was higher than 85 percent. The
Family Law Self-Help Center developed several hundred forms
and had a call center for people who were unrepresented to
help them with their cases. It not only helped the
litigants, it was a tremendous benefit to the court system.
He informed members that one thing that slowed court cases
down for judges was people appearing before the judge
unprepared. The Family Law Self-Help Center did a great job
in preparing people for court.
Mr. Wooliver moved to the other item on slide 11. He
highlighted the 19,256 online payments. He explained that
it used to be when a person had a court fine, fee, or
traffic ticket to pay, they had to write a check and mail
it in or bring it to the court. The state received over
19,000 payments online in the previous year. The online
payment option made it easier for citizens having to pay
for things as well as for court clerks. Also, the process
was more accurate because few people had to input data. He
pointed out that there were thousands of people that
downloaded forms off of the court's website. He continued
that by having online forms, of which there were several
hundred different types, they were much more accessible.
People could search for forms online and the court system
did not have to print a bunch of them saving money for the
state. For example, last year about 30,000 people
downloaded the Landlord Tenant Act booklet and, about
20,000 downloaded the court's small claims booklet. Access
and printable forms was a cost savings to the court.
3:10:10 PM
Co-Chair Wilson asked about whether jury selection was
based on Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) applications or
other forms of identification. Mr. Wooliver responded that
jurors were selected from the applicants of the PFD.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the criteria was in statute or
based on a decision by the court. Mr. Wooliver responded
that a little bit of both applied. He explained that the
court might be able to expand the list. The statute gave
the court the authority to work with the Department of
Revenue on the PFD information. In other words, the court
had statute to do it in the current way it was being done.
However, the court was not limited to doing it in that way.
Representative Carpenter asked when the many forms had been
audited last. He wondered who was responsible for doing the
audits.
Mr. Wooliver thought the representative's question was a
good one. He offered that the court system had three forms
attorneys who spend all of their time drafting, editing,
and changing forms. There were several forms that had to be
changed when legislation changed. For example, with the
passage of SB 91 [The omnibus crime passed in 2016] there
were several forms that had to be changed in response to
the passage of the bill. He indicated having worked on a
forms committee. He reported he learned that good forms
were enormously helpful. They assisted people in focusing
on the information they needed to provide along with
focusing judges on the information they needed to review.
Forms were updated and reviewed constantly. He noted that
the Family Law Self-Help Center also did forms through the
forms committee and their attorneys.
Mr. Wooliver moved to slide 12:" Examples of Cost-Savings
Measures."
Examples of Cost-Savings Measures
• Between FY16 and FY19, Deleted 44 PFT, 14
PPT, and 2 Temporary Positions for a total of
60 Deleted Positions
• Salary Schedules Capped at "R" Step
• Holding Positions Vacant to Generate
Savings
• Friday Afternoon Closures
• E-Distribution Project
• Expanded Use of Videoconferencing
Mr. Wooliver indicated the court had cut 60 positions. He
noted that three-quarters of the Judiciary budget was
personal services. The department had also capped its
salary steps at "R" which is 25 years. Other state agencies
had not taken such steps. The department had held positions
vacant to meet the 7 percent vacancy rate. He would discuss
Friday afternoon closures shortly. He mentioned the
E-Distribution project which meant emailing out more of the
work the court generated. The court emailed more judgements
and opinions than previously. The project resulted in a
savings of about $100,000 annually in paper, postage, and
envelopes. The court also found a savings by doing more
video conferencing which provided a great benefit to the
Department of Public Safety and the Department of
Corrections.
Mr. Wooliver also noted that under the American
Disabilities Act the court system had to provide sign
language interpreters for people who appeared in court who
had hearing issues. There were very few certified sign
language interpreters in Alaska. Most of them were employed
by the school districts or hospitals. The courts needed
them occasionally. Routinely the court had to fly
interpreters in from other states. Now the service could be
provided by video conferencing. In the prior year there
were 40 instances where the court video linked with someone
outside the state to provide the service at a huge service
to the court. He also noted the convenience of scheduling a
video conference as opposed to having to schedule someone's
travel days in advance. It might take an hour to and hour
and a half to schedule a sign language interpreter for a
video conference. It saved money and time.
3:15:37 PM
Mr. Wooliver advanced to slide 13: "FY 19 Operating Budget
Increases." He had mentioned earlier that the court had an
increase of .6 percent in its appropriation in the previous
year. It was a result of 2 increments funded by the
legislature. The first increment for $510 million covered
the increased cost of jury trials. Munch of the amount was
jury travel in rural Alaska, mostly to Bethel and
Dillingham. The second increase was for a full-time
position in the Veterans' Court in Anchorage. The court had
been borrowing staff from the other Therapeutic Courts but,
it had become popular enough that the court system
requested a full-time position to support that court.
Mr. Wooliver discussed the FY 20 Governor's Amended Request
on slide 14. Initially, the court system had asked for
$393,800 for facilities expenses to pay for increased lease
costs from the prior year. He noted that the court system
had come to the end of a 20 year lease with the City of
Bethel for the court house. The lease was renegotiated.
Lease costs had gone up in Bethel and had outpaced the cost
of living adjustments built into the previous lease. The
renegotiated lease cost the state an additional $164,000
per year. The Diamond Courthouse in Juneau was in the
public building fund and was owned by the State of Alaska.
The Department of Administration set the rent for the
occupants. The department reassessed the court system's
rent up by $116,000 per year. He reported a few smaller
increases in Seward and a couple of other places.
Mr. Wooliver noted that the largest increase to the budget
was the cost to re-open court systems on Friday afternoons.
He would discuss the increase on the following slide.
3:17:46 PM
Mr. Wooliver continued to slide 15: " Policy Change Full
Day Fridays." He explained that the court had not initially
asked for the increment. When the budget was put together
to present to the legislature, the court administration met
with the Supreme Court to discuss their wants, needs, and
what the budget should look like. The court system and the
Supreme Court considered asking for the funds to re-open on
Friday afternoons but opted not to do so for a couple of
reasons. First, the court was aware that the state remained
in challenging fiscal times. The preference was just to ask
for the increment needed to stay even covering the
increased costs, referred to as a maintenance budget. The
second reason the court system did not ask for the funds to
re-open on Friday afternoons was because, although they had
been somewhat impactful, being closed on Friday afternoons
had not proven to be a stumbling block in the criminal
justice system. Closing on Friday afternoons had not
created a bottle neck. The court decided not to ask for
anything but a maintenance budget. However, the court
system heard from the governor that he was interested in
opening on Friday afternoons. The court system consulted
with the Office of Management and Budget providing the
costs to reopen on Friday afternoons. The governor was
supportive as was the legislature. Therefore, the court
system added the increment to the budget request.
Mr. Wooliver explained that being closed Friday afternoons
had provided certain benefits. It gave judges one afternoon
a week when they knew they had bench time - when they would
not be in court. The public lawyers, prosecutors, public
defenders, and Office of Children's Services employees knew
there were no court hearings which provided some benefits.
It was popular with court employees as well. Employees
worked 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
8:00 a.m. to Noon on Fridays. It resulted in 1.5 hours less
per week per employee. It corresponded to about a 4 percent
reduction in pay and a total savings of $2 million per
year. In addition, in FY 17 the court system reduced its
number of employees by 15. Between the 2 cost savings, the
court would need the 15 employees back and the full work
week to re-open on Friday afternoons. Even though the
closing on Friday afternoons has had its benefits, it has
led to delays. Closing half of a day a week equated to 26
fewer hearing days per year. Much of the work needed to be
done in a court room. Last year the court system had the
highest number of felony filings it had ever had in Alaska.
In the current year, the court was on track to meet or
exceed that number. People expected the court system to be
open Monday through Friday during the work week. Many of
the lawyers were less enthusiastic about it than the public
defenders, assistant attorney generals, and prosecutors.
They came to court less often. However, being closed half a
day meant that things were put off further and further.
Being closed half of a day per week was starting to catch
up with the department.
3:22:55 PM
Mr. Wooliver reported there were a couple of other budget
items that had arisen on slide 16: "Other FY 20 Budget
Considerations." He explained that over the years when the
legislature approved the negotiated contracts for employees
in the executive branch, there was always a similar
provision that the legislature and the governor supported
for non-covered employees, employees working for the state
who were not part of the collective bargaining agreement.
The court system was not part of the collective bargaining
agreement. In the current session, thus far, there had not
been a corresponding increase for non-covered employees. He
indicated that the increase was critically important to the
court. He suggested that if employees in the executive
branch received a raise, but court employees did not, it
would make it incredibly difficult to recruit and retain
employees. The court system did not want to become the
training ground for executive branch employees. For
example, the court system had 121 in-court clerks, the
clerks that sit in the court room with a judge, and 115
court rooms where there was likely to be a trial. Not many
people had to go missing before there would no longer be
enough staff to hold court hearings. The court system in
Anchorage routinely ran short of staff. The court system
had to pull people from various areas to fill in and, it
was already stretched thin. The court was asking for 15 new
employees to alleviate shortages and to remain open Friday
afternoons. All of what he mentioned became more difficult
if the court system's employees were paid less than
similarly situated employees in the executive branch.
Mr. Wooliver reported that in dealing with the
subcommittees and with legislators, there was a growing
interest in Therapeutic Courts. He relayed that Therapeutic
Courts were not a silver bullet; they were time consuming
and not always successful. However, they were more
successful than sending people to jail with substance abuse
and mental health problems. The department wanted to do a
better job with its Therapeutic Courts and was asking for
additional funding for additional positions.
3:25:57 PM
Mr. Wooliver turned to slide 17: "Effectiveness Ratings and
Measures." The department looked at how well it did its
job. There were a number of ways to measure performance.
There were very good alternative dispute resolutions
including the Early Resolution Project, a program where
divorce cases used a volunteer attorney and mediator. about
half of divorce cases currently went through the program
and took only an afternoon to settle a divorce case. He
reported about 82 percent of the people who had gone
through the program had resolved their case in one court
hearing. It was a fabulously successful program.
Mr. Wooliver continued to discuss the court system's
effectiveness ratings and measures. A Juror survey was a
useful tool. He explained that when judges stood for
retention elections the Alaska Judicial Council reviewed
several data about the state's judges. They looked at
comments and surveyed police officers, prosecutors, defense
attorneys, court employees, jurors, and others. The juror
surveys were slightly different because everyone else they
surveyed were regular attendees in court. Jurors typically
came into court being unfamiliar with the judicial process
and did not know the judges. Jurors' impressions on how
well the court system did was slightly different. He
reviewed the retention election surveys for 2016 and 2018
general elections. During that time period there were 46
judges who stood for retention. In the surveys he looked
at, on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the highest) the average
was almost 4.9. The lowest score any of the judges received
was 4.7. He thought it was a way of showing that everyday
Alaskans were impressed with the performance and quality of
Alaska's judges.
Mr. Wooliver mentioned electronic efficiencies. He spoke of
a project the court was working on with jurors. Similar to
a dentist sending out a text reminder to a patient before
their appointment, the court system was currently doing it
for jurors. He reported that the main reason jurors did not
show up for jury duty was because they forgot to call in.
The court was presently using texts or an electronic method
to send out reminders to potential jurors. In Anchorage,
the no-show rate for people who did not receive texts was
about 28 percent. Whereas, the no-show with a text message
was about 13 percent or about half. It took a bit to set up
the text system, but once it was running it proved
effective.
3:29:46 PM
Representative Carpenter asked Mr. Wooliver to return to
slide 17. He wondered if the court system used a lean
process improvement methodology to find efficiency gains in
the court system. Mr. Wooliver responded, "Not that I am
aware of."
Representative LeBon asked about the juror selection
process. He presented a hypothetical scenario. Mr. Wooliver
responded that he would provide an informational sheet. The
number of times a person was selected had to do with
location.
Co-Chair Wilson communicated that in Fairbanks a person got
a year off if they did not serve and 2 years if they did.
She noted that in Fairbanks people had to call for a month
versus in Anchorage where a person had to call for a week.
She thought it would be helpful to know the guideline for
different areas. Mr. Wooliver would provide the rules to
the committee with additional specifics.
3:33:15 PM
Mr. Wooliver reported that slide 18 provided a snapshot of
how the court was organized and where the court spent its
money. He elaborated that there were 4 appropriations
within the judicial branch including the court system,
Therapeutic Courts, the Alaska Judicial Council , and the
Commission on Judicial Conduct. The judicial branch was
mostly a trial court organization which was where most
things a person thought happened in a court room occurred.
It was where most of the employee and judges were. The
slide had a significant amount of information. He concluded
his presentation.
Co-Chair Wilson asked if the increase in hours on Friday
would have an impact on the unsentenced people sitting in
Alaska's institutions awaiting trial. Mr. Wooliver did not
believe the backlog of people awaiting trial had much to do
with the Friday afternoon closure. He thought it had more
to do with many of the bills making their way through the
legislature and with pre-trial release.
Co-Chair Wilson was concerned about the 45 percent, as she
had heard blame being placed on lawyers and the court. She
thought the issue should be figured out.
Co-Chair Wilson indicated the following meeting would be
held on Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. The committee
would be considering the budget overview for the Department
of Health and Social Services.
ADJOURNMENT
3:35:19 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Kelly Tshibaka DOA_Redacted.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
Gov Appointee Confirmation Hearing HFIN |
| Kelly Tshibaka DOA Support Letters.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
|
| Kevin Clarkson Resume.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
Gov Appointee Confirmation Hearing HFIN |
| Court System HFC 3 11 19.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN Court Sys Budget Overview |
| FY2020 Gov Amend Budget to HFC 3.11.19 Law JUD.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN LAW Budget Overview |
| Support AG Clarkson.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN Gov Appointee Consideration |
| Support Tshibaka.doc |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
HFIN Gov Appointee Support |
| Jud Overview HFIN Response to Q's.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
Response to Questions re: Judiciary Overview |
| OMB Response to HFIN LAW 3.11.19.pdf |
HFIN 3/11/2019 1:30:00 PM |
OMB Response to Q's LAW Overview |