Legislature(2019 - 2020)ADAMS ROOM 519
03/26/2019 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB77 | |
| HB48 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 48 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 26, 2019
9:00 a.m.
9:00:05 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Wilson called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:00 a.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 Kelly Merrick
Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Representative Cathy Tilton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska Court System; Lynn
Gattis, Staff, Representative Tammie Wilson; Remond
Henderson, Staff, Representative Tammie Wilson.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Russel Sampson, Self, Wasilla
SUMMARY
HB 48 TEMP STATE EMPLOYEES IN PART EXEMPT SVCE
HB 48 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 77 NUMBER OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES
HB 77 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 77
"An Act relating to the number of superior court
judges in the third judicial district; and providing
for an effective date."
9:01:00 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, relayed
that the bill had been put forward by the Alaska Court
System. She noted it was not very common for the courts to
put legislation forward. She explained that the Court
System needed legislative authorization to change the
number of superior court judges. The legislation would
increase the number of superior court judges by two (from
43 to 45 statewide) in the third judicial district. The
court hoped to convert two existing district court
judgeships located in Homer and Valdez to superior court
judgeships. She explained that Homer and Valdez were the
only locations in Alaska with a single judge who was a
district court judge.
Ms. Mead detailed that superior court judges had general
jurisdiction and could handle anything that came into the
trial court. Their caseload was primarily comprised of
felonies, child in need of aid (CINA) cases, divorce and
child custody issues, and probate (such as mental
commitments); superior court judges could handle anything
that came in the door. In contrast, a district court judge
had limited jurisdiction and could not handle felonies,
CINA, divorce and child custody issues. The reason to
convert the seats was to provide judges in Homer and Valdez
expanded jurisdiction that would enable them to handle all
cases locally.
Ms. Mead reported the timing for the change was ideal. The
Valdez seat was vacant - the previous district court judge
had been appointed as the new superior court judge in
Juneau (as a result of legislation passed the previous
session that authorized the change for a Juneau judge). The
district court judge in Homer had announced her retirement
effective at the end of the fiscal year. She explained that
if the bill passed, the Alaska Judicial Council would
advertise the positions as superior court judge seats
rather than district court judge seats.
Ms. Mead explained the current process in Homer in the
absence of a superior court judge. She detailed that the
district court judge handled all district court matters,
but superior court cases (e.g. child in need of aid,
divorce cases, and felonies) were handled by Kenai superior
court judges traveling to Homer. Kenai judges had traveled
to Homer 35 times in the past two years - their default
schedule was to travel to Homer one week per month. She
noted that the situation was not ideal. She elaborated that
the situation could be rectified and improved by having a
local judge with the ability to handle all filings.
9:04:29 AM
Ms. Mead addressed the situation in Valdez. The district
court judge who had been in Valdez a lengthy period of time
and had substantial experience and willingness had a
temporary appointment by the state supreme court to handle
numerous, but not all, superior court matters. She
elaborated that sometimes Palmer or Anchorage judges would
travel to Valdez. She explained that if a new [permanent
district court] judge was appointed to the Valdez position
by the supreme court, it was unlikely they would be
appointed to handle any of the felony, divorce, and CINA
cases. She suggested it was the time to fix the situation
and rectify the inefficiencies.
Ms. Mead detailed that the Alaska Supreme Court had tried
numerous ways to make the situation better. She elaborated
that the Kenai and Homer courts were connected by video
equipment and in the past couple of years more hearings
could be held [via video] by the Kenai superior court judge
while the defendant (e.g. in a felony or CINA case) was in
the Homer court room. She noted that videoconferencing was
not satisfactory for numerous proceedings; in many cases
the parties needed to see the judge and the judge needed to
see what was going on in the courtroom. She explained that
videoconferencing was not a permanent or ideal solution.
Ms. Mead reported that the courts had tried having judges
(who may have lighter caseloads) travel from other courts.
The state supreme court was always looking at metrics for
case filings and positions and trying to move things around
as necessary, perhaps with temporary or traveling judges.
However, due to the retirement in Homer and vacancy in
Valdez, the courts were hoping to fix the problem to avoid
inefficiency going forward.
9:06:50 AM
Representative LeBon asked about the differences in the
qualifications, education, and training between the
district and superior court judges.
Ms. Mead answered that there were minimum qualifications
requiring superior and district court judges to be a
resident and have a law degree. She believed superior court
judges had to be actively practicing law for five years
prior to applying. She thought the length of time may be
four years for district judges.
Representative LeBon observed the stated difference was not
major. He surmised that elevating oneself from a district
court judgeship position to a superior court position was
not a huge leap in terms of qualifications.
Ms. Mead replied that the statutory minimum qualifications
were not substantially different; however, the workload was
very different. She elaborated that often the advertisement
for the positions attracted different types of candidates.
There was a different pace in the two courts - the superior
court required the writing of considerably more opinions
and district court required a fast turnover of a large
number of cases.
9:08:18 AM
Representative Knopp asked if the appointment process was
the same for the [superior court and district court
judgeship] positions. He asked if the Judicial Council
would nominate three candidates for the positions.
Ms. Mead answered in the affirmative. She detailed that
advertisements for any judgeship position went through the
Judicial Council and the council needed to nominate at
lease two highly qualified people for each judgeship.
Representative Knopp asked for verification that at least
four nominees would be forwarded for consideration.
Ms. Mead replied that the Judicial Council conducted the
work by seat; therefore, the council would nominate at
least two individuals for Valdez and in a separate process
it would nominate at least two individuals for Homer.
Representative Knopp asked if the seats would be filled mid
to late summer. Ms. Mead agreed and specified it took four
to six months to fill a seat.
Representative Josephson provided a hypothetical scenario
where a person filed an action in Homer. He asked if the
person had the discretion to file action in Kenai instead.
For example, he wondered if a person had to file in Homer
if the act or events occurred in Seldovia.
Ms. Mead believed the person could file in Kenai or Homer.
Representative Josephson asked how the bill would impact
the workloads of the public defenders, human services
attorneys, and district attorneys.
Ms. Mead replied that it would not change workload because
the bill had no impact on the number of cases filed.
However, the bill could change the location where cases
were handled. She believed the attorneys would be pleased
to have the cases covered in those locations [Homer and
Valdez] because perhaps it would involve less travel. She
noted she would not speak for the agencies. She added that
currently a felony filed in Homer was heard in Homer, but
it required a Kenai judge to travel to Homer for the
hearing. She considered that the bill may not have a
significant impact on the agencies.
9:10:45 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about the net fiscal impact on the
Court System if the bill passed. He recognized that a
superior court judge would be paid more but there would be
less travel.
Ms. Mead replied there was a fiscal note showing the
difference in salary and benefits (a superior court judge
was paid more than a district court judge). The note
included travel savings, which would occur primarily
because Kenai judges would no longer travel to Homer. The
total net impact was $62,000 per year.
Vice-Chair Johnston noted that the supreme court had made
the same change in Juneau [converting a district court
judgeship seat to a superior court seat]. She thought it
appeared people believed the change had been successful.
She asked whether data had been collected in terms of time
savings or effectiveness.
Ms. Mead replied that the data was not available; it was
not possible to track how much more effective the Juneau
court was. The sense was the Juneau court was working more
efficiently and effectively because with the results of
legislation the previous year there were three superior
court judges and one district court judge. The bill had
moved one district court judgeship seat up to a superior
court seat. She reported that the flow of cases in the
superior court had been good. The court did not have data
showing whether precise cases were being resolved faster,
but the sense was it was more efficient.
9:13:06 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if there was a difference in
backlog.
Ms. Mead thought there may not be a difference yet. She
relayed that the new superior court judge had started a
couple of months earlier and the coming Friday would be his
formal installation. The sense was that things were working
more efficiently.
Representative Carpenter understood the superior court in
Kenai was backlogged and that it would be beneficial for
Kenai if its judge did not have to travel one week per
month. He asked if the Homer need for superior court cases
equaled a full-time superior court judge. He wondered if
the judge would have free time to help with other cases on
the Kenai Peninsula.
Ms. Mead answered that the caseload in Homer was not so
high that it would justify a full superior court judge, but
the appointee would handle all of the district court
filings as well. If the judge had extra time the plan was
to provide increased flexibility to allow the judge help in
other locations (the Valdez superior court judge could help
in Palmer and the Homer judge could help in Kenai to the
extent feasible).
Representative Carpenter remarked that the fiscal note
included savings in travel. He asked if the savings would
not materialize because the new superior court judge in
Homer would travel to help in other locations when
necessary.
Ms. Mead answered there could be additional travel having
the Homer superior court judge help in Kenai. However, she
believed the Homer judge would be busy in Homer most of the
time with the combination of superior and district court
work. There were always some travel costs because judges
were fluid and filled in where needed throughout districts.
9:16:01 AM
Representative Josephson asked how many itinerant judge
calendars would remain in Alaska if the bill passed. He
cited Unalaska as an example and recalled cases where a
judge flew from Dillingham to Anchorage to Unalaska.
Ms. Mead answered there were a number of small court
locations without a resident judge. Those locations, such
as Unalaska, had a magistrate judge who handled lower level
proceedings - there were 40 court locations and sometimes a
court only had a deputy magistrate. She explained that in
those situations a judge in Anchorage was assigned to any
felonies that arose. For example, a judge from Anchorage
was traveling to Saint Paul for a felony case in the coming
month; the caseload in Saint Paul was not large enough to
warrant a superior or district court judge. She elaborated
that certain judges, typically in Anchorage, were assigned
to carry the caseload in places like Sand Point and
Unalaska.
Co-Chair Wilson OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
HB 77 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 48
"An Act removing from the exempt service of the state
persons who are employed in a professional capacity to
make a temporary or special inquiry, study, or
examination as authorized by the governor and
including those persons in the partially exempt
service of the state."
9:17:55 AM
LYNN GATTIS, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON,
introduced the bill by reading the bill title:
An Act removing from the exempt service of the state
persons who are employed in a professional capacity to
make a temporary or special inquiry, study, or
examination as authorized by the governor and
including those persons in the partially exempt
service of the state.
Ms. Gattis reviewed the sponsor statement (copy on file):
AS 39.25.110(9) was supposed to allow the governor to
appoint someone for some "temporary and special
inquiry". Because they are temporary, exempts do not
get PERS or regular State leave, health insurance or
other State benefits. However, the statute has not
been used in that manner. It has instead been used to
establish positions without the intent of the
positions being temporary, which would then entitle
employees to PERS and all other benefits.
The purpose of HB 48 is to discontinue the historical
practice by the Executive Branch of using AS
39.25.110(9) to unilaterally establish highly paid
executive level temporary exempt positions that have
no salary limits. There are positions established many
years ago using this statute that still exist today.
Some are unbudgeted and do not appear in agency
position counts. Several attempts have been made to
obtain a complete list of these positions and current
salary levels, but these attempts have been
unsuccessful.
HB 48 is intended to eliminate the establishment of
"temporary exempt" positions and instead place these
positions in the partially exempt service. Persons may
be "appointed" to partially exempt positions, however,
they will be subject to salary limits like all other
state employees. HB 48 will force the administration
to be more transparent and allow all employees to be
treated fairly.
9:20:40 AM
Vice-Chair Johnston asked if the statute associated with
the bill [AS 39.25.110(9)] was limited to the executive
branch or could be used in state enterprise units like
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA),
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), or Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC).
REMOND HENDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON,
answered the statute allowed and defined those individuals
covered by partially exempt, exempt, and classified
service. Partially exempt service positions included deputy
and assistant commissioners, directors of major divisions,
attorneys in the Department of Law, the Public Defender's
Office, one executive secretary for each department,
principal executive officers of councils and commissions
(e.g. the Alaska Public Broadcasting Commission and the
Parole Board). The positions Vice-Chair Johnston was
referencing were covered under exempt service (e.g. AIDEA).
Vice-Chair Johnston asked for verification that some of the
state's enterprise units would not be using the loophole in
statute. She surmised it was more of an administration
function.
Mr. Henderson believed anyone could use the statute because
it allowed something to be approved by the governor's
office. There was also recent policy instituted by the
governor's office requiring the governor's approval for not
only those positions established under the statute, but for
positions above a [pay] Range 18 or salary of $150,000 or
more.
9:23:14 AM
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked for the number of
positions identified under the previous administration that
fell under the purview of the bill. She asked if they were
looking at salary ranges of $300,000 or more.
Mr. Henderson replied they had not been successful in
identifying the number of positions that existed. The
positions were buried in a large list of hundreds of
positions. He explained the process involved trying to
identify a position control number (PCN) by looking for the
word "temporary." It was very difficult to ascertain the
number of positions created in that manner. He elaborated
that the best source of information was the individual
departments. He reported that when they attempted to get
the information from the departments, the response had
varied. At one point they had been told the information
would be complied by the Department of Law, then they had
been told it would be compiled by the Department of
Administration, and it had ultimately come from the Office
of Management and Budget. He noted they had never received
a complete list of the positions.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard surmised the legislation
would bring the issue to the forefront to identify the
number of positions and the salary ranges. She construed
the bill would fix an existing problem.
Mr. Henderson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Sullivan-Leonard asked if the bill also
pertained to positions identified in the legislative
branch.
Mr. Henderson replied in the negative. The sponsor's office
had not identified any positions in the legislative branch
that had been created under the statute.
9:25:36 AM
Co-Chair Wilson added that her office had also found the
issue was not limited to listed PCNs. She explained that if
a department had money from other resources, it was able to
use those funds to pay for the individuals. She agreed that
as the budget was developed, the legislature would see the
positions, job descriptions, and how the salary had been
handled.
Vice-Chair Ortiz appreciated the intent of the bill and was
supportive. He asked for further detail on the language in
the sponsor statement stating that the bill would force the
administration to be more transparent and allow all
employees to be treated fairly. He asked for detail on how
employees had not been treated fairly. He wondered if there
was any downside to adopting the bill.
Co-Chair Wilson answered that temporary positions did not
go through the same process as all other state employees.
The deletion of the statute would mean all employees would
go through the same process - the state would have to
consider the job description and how much an individual was
paid and would not be able to randomly determine the
person's salary. She stated the issue was about employees
who went through the [general hiring] process versus
employees who were currently hired via the loophole.
9:27:38 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for verification that the
individuals would be treated more fairly because they would
go through the same hiring process.
Co-Chair Wilson replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there were any opportunity costs
associated with the bill. Mr. Henderson replied there were
no additional costs to the bill. He reported that the
department had prepared a zero fiscal note for the bill.
Vice-Chair Ortiz clarified he was not talking about
financial cost but opportunity costs. For example, perhaps
past administrations had used the statute to attract more
highly qualified people for a position.
Mr. Henderson answered that he saw the bill as a cost
savings measure.
Vice-Chair Ortiz understood. He clarified he was wondering
if the statute had been used in the past to attract highly
qualified people or talented individuals, which would no
longer be possible if the bill was adopted.
Mr. Henderson replied that the bill would not prevent the
administration from maintaining that practice. The state
would still be allowed to seek those individuals for hire
but would have to provide written justification to pay
individuals above a certain range. He explained that
written justification was not currently required.
9:29:41 AM
Representative Josephson asked how the positions would be
more transparent to the finance committee, legislature, and
public.
Mr. Henderson answered that as the statute was currently
used, individuals could be appointed to the positions
without salary limitations. He explained that the positions
were not subject to a classification pay plan. The bill
would require the individuals to be placed in partially
exempt service where there was a statutory provision that
identified the positions covered under partially exempt
service and the associated salary scales.
Representative Josephson asked if the positions moved to
partially exempt service that it meant the employees may
not receive healthcare or retirement benefits.
Alternatively, he wondered if the individuals would still
be eligible for the benefits.
Mr. Henderson replied that the individuals would be
entitled to healthcare and benefits provided to other
employees.
Representative Carpenter understood the concept of
increased transparency. He asked what would happen if there
was a need for a temporary employee in a timely manner. He
noted the bill's provision that would require hiring a
person through the normal process. He asked if the bill
eliminated the executive branch's ability to bring in a
person with subject matter expertise.
Mr. Henderson replied in the negative. The bill would not
prohibit the administration from hiring someone immediately
that they found qualified for a temporary position.
9:32:21 AM
RUSSEL SAMPSON, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference),
supported the bill. She thanked Co-Chair Wilson for
sponsoring the bill.
Co-Chair Wilson CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Wilson reported amendments were due the following
day by 5:00 p.m.
HB 48 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Wilson discussed the schedule for a meeting the
following day. She reported the next meeting was that
afternoon.
ADJOURNMENT
9:34:02 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:34 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB077 Sectional Analysis ver A 3-19-19.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB077 - sponsor statement 3-19-19.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 77 |
| HB048 ver M Sponsor Statement 3.21.19.pdf |
HFIN 3/26/2019 9:00:00 AM |
HB 48 |