Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/05/2003 01:32 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
February 5, 2003
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ralph Seekins, Chair
Senator Scott Ogan
Senator Gene Therriault
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Alaska Court System Overview
TAPES
03-02, SIDES A & B [SENATE JUD TAPE]
CHAIR RALPH SEEKINS convened the meeting of the Senate Judiciary
Standing Committee at 1:32 p.m. The quorum present included
Senator French, Senator Therriault and Chair Seekins. Senator
Ellis arrived at 1:32 and Senator Ogan arrived at 1:40.
CHAIR SEEKINS introduced Chris Christensen, Deputy
Administrative Director, and Doug Wooliver, Administrative
Attorney of the Alaska Court System and invited them to proceed
with the Alaska Court System Overview.
MR. CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, Deputy Administrative Director of the
Alaska Court System, said legislative members would see Mr.
Wooliver and himself frequently during the course of the
legislative session and they were pleased to be presenting the
overview.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to put
together a system of government that protected
individual liberty by preventing the government from
becoming too powerful. They looked to the writings of
an 18th century French political philosopher named
Montesquieu. He was a gentleman who came up with all
kinds of [indis.] separation of powers. He identified
three specific types of governmental powers:
legislative, executive and judicial. And he theorized
that if you put government into three separate
entities, gave each one of them a separate power that
each would jealously safeguard its own turf.
Government wouldn't become all-powerful and the
liberty of the individual would be protected. So our
federal government and the governments of all 50
states have been organized on this model.
I think what's interesting about Alaska is that
constitutional scholars generally agree that the
Alaska Constitution has created the purest separation
of powers of any of the 50 states. And that's really
not surprising if you think about it. The framers of
our constitution got together in Fairbanks back in the
mid-50s, called themselves Democrats and they called
themselves Republicans but the kind of folks who lived
in Alaska back then were very much Libertarians. They
were trying to break the shackles that the federal
government had placed on the territory. They wanted a
system that maximized individual liberty and minimized
the ability of the new state to restrict that liberty.
So in Alaska we have three branches plus the
University. And just as an aside, there has always
been a debate as to what the University actually is.
Some say it is part of the executive branch and say
it's an entity outside the three branch structure.
Not surprisingly, the University says the latter as
the executive branch that says the former.
The legislature and the judiciary together are very
tiny. Together we make up less than two percent of
the state budget, the executive branch is 87 percent,
the University is 11 percent. Other than size, the
judiciary is similar to the legislature in another
important way; the executive is headed by one person,
everyone works for that person, power flows down from
the top. The legislature on the other hand has 60
officers, each with an independent face with
constitutional power. The judiciary has 59 officers,
each with a face of constitutional power. So that's
how the judiciary and the legislature are alike.
Maybe more important is how and why our branches are
different. The judiciary is generally considered by
political scientists to be the least powerful of the
three branches. At the federal level the Constitution
was drafted so that Congress was most powerful, then
the executive, then the judiciary. And of course that
power structure has shifted over the last two hundred
years as a lot of power has moved from Congress to the
executive. The framers of our constitution drafted a
constitution so that the executive would be the most
powerful then the legislature then the judiciary.
Power has also shifted in Alaska again from the
legislature to the executive, making the executive
even more powerful than it was at the time of
statehood. I think one example of this, maybe the
best example, is the 120 day session limit, which
keeps the legislature out of - out of session longer
than it used to be. And when the legislature is out
of session it increases the governor's power because
there are many things you can't do to restrict it.
The primary reason that the judiciary has less power
than the other two branches is because the supreme
court is almost purely reactive. It generally can't
initiate the use of its most significant power and it
generally can't act quickly. Someone has to file a
case, the case has to proceed through the trial
courts, someone then has to appeal the case and only
then does the supreme court get to exercise its power
and this might be several years down the road.
The other major difference between the judiciary and
the legislature goes to the heart of the system that
the framers were trying to set up to insure that
liberty was protected. In our society the legislature
is the majoritarian institution. Its members were
elected and thus its focus is on implementing the
perceived will of the majority. The courts are not a
majoritarian institution and this was very intentional
but people frequently ask why is it. In a democracy,
you have an institution that is not majoritarian in
any [indisc.]. I think the answer is pretty simple,
you look to the writings of James Madison, the man we
call the father of the constitution, the man who had
the greatest role in drafting our Bill of Rights, he
said that the majority in a democracy was capable of
behaving just as tyrannically as the worst dictator.
He thought that you needed to check the majority with
a written Bill of Rights, which is of course very
different from our mother country England and have an
independent judiciary to enforce the Bill of Rights.
Now when I say minority, Mr. Chairman of course I am
not just referring to groups, I am also talking about
the ultimate minority, which is the individual. So
this is why you will occasionally find the legislature
at odds with the courts. If you look back over the
decades since statehood it doesn't matter who has been
in control of the legislature, sometimes it's been
Democrats, sometimes Republican, sometimes it's been
coalitions lead by rural interests or by urban
interests, sometimes by liberals and sometimes
conservatives. And one thing all those groups had in
common is that when they are in power they
occasionally get frustrated with the courts because it
responds to a lawsuit. Very occasionally, not often
but occasionally, the courts will tell whoever is in
power; "No you can't do that."
Mr. Chairman this is, this is a lot of very dry
political theory so let's maybe talk about some more
practical stuff. In our dealings with the legislature
you will note two major differences in your dealings
with the executive branch. First, more pieces of
legislation affect us than any other entity. That's
why you will see - see me and see Doug as often as you
will. Unlike the executive, we almost invariably take
no position on that legislation. The supreme court
believes that this is your forum, you're here to set
the public policy in this forum and it's inappropriate
for it to tell you that something is good or bad. The
only time we'll take a position on legislation is if
it's a bill that directly impacts the internal
operation of the judicial branch. [Indisc.] sessions
without seeing anything like that. What we will do is
tell you what something will cost and suggest ways
that you can accomplish your goals more cheaply and
look through writes of legislation for technical
problems. The other major difference you'll see in
your dealings with us is that we don't have the veto
to threaten you with. The judiciary is the branch
that says please when it deals with the legislature.
Mr. Chairman, civil and criminal justice is a core
governmental function. It's not something that
government does because it wants to do, it's something
that it does because it has to do. I mean you can't
think of many reasons for government to exist if not
to provide for a criminal justice system to protect
the public and a civil justice system to allow people
to settle their disputes without engaging in self-
help.
Now while this is not the Finance Committee, all of
you will deal with fiscal issues during the course of
this session either in caucus or in your finance
subcommittees or as you look at the fiscal notes that
are attached to pieces of legislation in this
committee. I think it is important therefore, to
point out one major difference between us and most
other governmental entities and that is we have a
complete inability to control our workload. Our
function is constitutionally mandated; cases are filed
by individuals, by businesses, by for-profit and non-
profit organizations, by municipal government, by
state and federal government, by residents and
nonresidents. We have to take every single case that
comes through the door. We do not have the legal
ability to say no. For many governmental agencies, if
they stop providing a service the workload simply goes
away. At the courts it's not like that, we could shut
a courthouse in a certain community that doesn't mean
that people are going to stop committing crime in the
community or they're going to stop wanting to get
divorced or they're going to stop causing traffic
accidents or having disputes over contracts, children
are not going to stop being abused. The work is all
still there, it just moves to the next nearest
courthouse.
Right now, we have a total of about 720 permanent
employees in 43 locations. While the Alaska Court
System is almost the entire judicial branch, we are
about 99 percent of the judicial branch; we are
actually smaller than many executive branch
departments. About 77 percent of our budget [is]
personnel costs, which is a very, very high percentage
and 70 percent of our employees are paid at a range 15
or less. This is not a high paid operation. To put
this in perspective, the Department of Public Safety
has almost the exact same number of employees that we
do but their budget is almost, is more than twice as
big. This is because they have very expensive
equipment needs for cars and airplanes, radio
equipment, they operate the crime lab. They are not
just personnel costs. And, again, about one third of
their employees are state troopers who, because of the
nature of their function and the training they
receive, are compensated, have to be compensated at a
much higher level than clerical employees.
In Alaska, we have what's called a unified judiciary.
This is very rare; only eight states have a unified
judiciary. By unified I mean that there is only one
court system here. Most states, they have a state
court, they'll have county courts, they'll have
municipal courts and they divide up the caseload.
In Alaska the entire budget of the court system is
provided from one source, the legislature appropriates
it. This is also very unusual; there are only five
states in which the legislature provides the entire
budget. In many other places, in places with multiple
courts, of course perhaps the county will pay for the
county court system or they will force the county to
provide buildings for the state court system.
We also have one other very unusual feature and that
is the director of the court system is a
constitutional officer. We - this court system unlike
many outside is run by what you might call the strong
city manager. You have a supreme court, which is made
up of very bright attorneys who set general policy
guidelines. And the day-to-day operation of the
institution is conducted by a court professional,
someone who has been trained and experienced at
actually managing a court, a court system.
Now if you take these three factors together, the
unified judiciary, the single source of funding and
the professional management, Alaska is unique. We're
the only state that combines all three of those
factors.
For jurisdictional purposes, we are divided into four
judicial districts.
· The first judicial district is Southeast Alaska.
· The second district is the North Slope and the western
coastal area.
· The third district is Southcentral Alaska. This of
course, is the largest district that makes up about 60
percent of the population and 60 percent of the
caseload.
· And the fourth, of course, is the Interior from the
Canadian border through Fairbanks and on out to
Bethel.
We have four levels of courts in this state. The
highest court is the supreme court. It has five
members. It is headquartered in Anchorage although it
meets generally every four or five weeks in Fairbanks
and several times a year in Juneau. The court, it has
the local attorneys or governmental entities who want
to argue before the supreme court, saves those up in
Fairbanks and Juneau and then regularly appears so
those folks don't have to make a special trip to
Anchorage. One thing that you should be aware of
about our supreme court, it is not for purposes of its
civil caseload, it is not a cert. [certiorari] court.
What does that mean. The U.S. Supreme Court is a
cert. court. That means they don't have to take and
hear every case that they get. The U.S. Supreme Court
right now only actually hears about one out of every
hundred cases that are appealed to it. Our court has
to hear every single civil case that's appealed to it.
Sometimes you hear criticism of our court being a
little bit slow in getting its cases out and part of
this is simply because it has to hear everything. You
may have read in the newspaper last year about a case
that came out of Fairbanks. It involved a divorced
couple who were arguing over the custody of their
chocolate Labrador Retriever. The trial judge was
forced to make best interest of the dog findings.
They appealed it to the supreme court and the supreme
court actually had to hear the case and write an
opinion. Now most of us would not think this a good
use of state resources but under our constitution,
that's what the court has to do. Most state supreme
courts are cert. courts. They have an ability to
manage their caseload by rejecting cases that they
think are not of general interest such as the dog
case. ...The supreme court by the way is created by
the constitution.
The second level of court is the court of criminal
appeals, which is not a constitutional court it was
actually created by the legislature in the early
1980s. This is a court to which you can appeal
criminal convictions. This is the final court for
criminal purposes although you can appeal a case from
this court to the supreme court but the supreme court
doesn't have to take it. They only take cases that
they think are especially important or they think the
court of appeals may have been incorrect in its
decision. The reason the legislature created this
court is because back by the early 1980s the supreme
court was really experiencing [indis.] so many cases
it was really slowing things down. There was a
proposal in the legislature to increase the size of
the court to give it more members, perhaps seven, so
there'd be more members to share the workload and
write the opinions. We had done some work with the
National Center of State Boards and suggested that
creating a different court might be an option, a lower
level of court of appeals. The reason for this is
that the larger you make a state supreme court the
more inefficient you make it. One person writes an
opinion but everybody has to sign off on the opinion,
they have to agree to every last word of it. That
opinion would then be circulated to six other members
instead of four other members. You agreed with this
analysis and created this court of appeals and I would
note that there've been several states since then,
states the legislatures have gone to the Alaska model.
They've actually made their supreme courts smaller and
created a court of intermediate appeals as a more
efficient way of managing the workload. The court of
appeals is also headquartered in Anchorage.
SENATOR SCOTT OGAN said he was not aware the supreme court could
deny criminal cases. He asked if there was some "wiggle room"
for that in the constitution because the supreme court is
constitutionally created and the court of criminal appeals is
created by statute.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained the constitution says everyone has the
right to appeal his or her case from the trial court. If there
was only a supreme court that is the only place he or she could
appeal it. When the legislature created the court of criminal
appeals that met the constitutional mandate. It only applies to
criminal cases because the legislature limited the court of
appeals jurisdiction to criminal cases.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained the constitution created the supreme
court and the superior court and said the legislature had the
authority to create other courts by statute. Immediately after
statehood, the legislature created the district court, which is
the lowest level of court. It hears misdemeanors and civil
cases under $50,000 of value. Then in the early 1980s, the
legislature created the court of criminal appeals.
SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS asked what the prerogative of the court is
in scheduling cases they are required to hear as the last
appeal. He said it wasn't that long ago Senator Donley was
sitting there demanding more timely decisions and threatening
people's salaries and other sanctions. The Judiciary Committee
went through many discussions about that. He asked what kind of
leeway the court has on when they schedule cases they must hear
and the time frame for rendering opinions.
MR. CHRISTENSEN answered that since the court cannot just turn
cases away a lack of resources means delay.
Now back about the time of statehood the legislature
passed a statute which said that in order to get his
paycheck every two weeks a judge has to certify under
oath that nothing before him that's ready for a
decision to be made has sat there for longer than six
months. Our judges, our 59 judges and our 39
magistrates are the only governmental employees who
have to swear under oath every two weeks that they're
caught up on their work or their paycheck is withheld.
MR. CHRISTENSEN reported there are about eight other states that
withhold salaries. It has been challenged several times and
each time that state supreme court has thrown it out for reasons
which apply here. The constitution says a judge's salary cannot
be reduced while he or she is in office. The Declaration of
Independence listed about 27 different things that proved King
George was a tyrant. He withheld the salary of judges in order
to bend them to his will. Therefore, the U.S. Constitution and
the constitution of most states say the legislature cannot
reduce a salary. Money has a time value so when a judge's
paycheck is withheld it is essentially reducing the value of his
or her salary. Mr. Christensen's opinion, as the chief attorney
for the court, is that this is very clearly unconstitutional.
No judge since the time of statehood has challenged it. He
thought there has been a feeling that judges do need to keep
caught up on their workload and this is actually a fairly good
management tool. Judges have had their paychecks withheld for as
long as four months.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said the bill Senator Ellis referred to would
have reduced the time courts had to make decisions to four
months and would have applied to the supreme court. The supreme
court assigns one member to write the opinion after the oral
argument. The member has six months to write the opinion and
then the opinion is circulated and the clock stops. Under this
proposed legislation, if one supreme court justice wasn't caught
up on his work all five would lose their paychecks. The
legislature decided not to pass that legislation and make the
law even more unconstitutional.
SENATOR OGAN said, currently in the constitution, judges are not
subject to confirmation by the legislature. He asked how many
states don't require legislative confirmation.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said he did not know but would provide the
committee with the number.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained at the time the United States became a
nation the judges in most states were appointed by the governor
for life. Over the next 50 years, people wanted their state
courts to be majoritarian institutions and to issue decisions
based on the will of the people. "Which I supposed is just fine
unless you are the one in front of the judge and you're
advocating an unpopular opinion." Many states have switched to
a contested election system. A campaign for the supreme court
costs over a million dollars in the contested election system of
Texas. About half of the money comes from the insurance
industry, which had figured out that donating money to supreme
court candidates is a good way to get Tort Reform. The other
half comes from lawyers who argue in front of the supreme court.
In the 1940s a backlash against the contested election system
began. Missouri and then Alaska adopted what is called the
Missouri Plan. The Missouri Plan is a midway system where
judges are appointed based on merit and do not stand in
contested elections. These judges come before voters on a
regular bases and the voters can vote up or down. Some Missouri
Plan states have legislative confirmation and some do not.
Alaska's system was adopted without confirmation because the
goal of the framers was to keep Alaska's judiciary as non-
political as possible. He said when an article are written
about controversial things done by federal judges it always
identifies the judge as a Republican or a Democrat and points
out who appointed them.
2:00 p.m.
MR. CHRISTENSEN proceeded with his overview presentation.
Our next level of court, the court of general
jurisdiction is the superior court. Right now the
superior court, this is a constitutional court, right
now it has 32 members who are in 13 locations around
the state; Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, Palmer,
Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Barrow, Kotzebue, Bethel,
Nome, Dillingham, Kodiak. There are three other
sites, Wrangell, Petersburg and Valdez, which are
designated as superior court sites, but they don't
have a resident superior court judge, they are served
by traveling judges. The superior court has exclusive
jurisdiction over [indis.], which is about 20 percent
of its caseload over juvenile delinquency matters. It
has exclusive jurisdiction over the family law cases,
the divorces, child support, child custody, child
visitation, which right now makes up close to 40
percent of their caseload and this is probably the
most traumatic part of the caseload. This is a part
of the caseload which nationwide... results in the
most violence in courtrooms. The worst thing you can
do to a lot of people is not put them in jail, is to
take their kids away.
...We are a service entity, we exist merely to provide
service to the public and to government agencies and
to businesses, but at the court system the customer
isn't always right. Nearly 85 percent of the people
who are brought in on criminal matters get a
conviction and 50 percent of all the people who come
in on civil matters lose. And these are people who
leave very, very unhappy and you, your offices hear
from many of them.
Now the court of limited jurisdiction is the district
court. This was created, as I noted, created by the
legislature right after the time of statehood. There
are two kinds of judicial officers in the district
court.
· First are the district judges who are appointed by the
governor. They have 17 of those in seven locations.
They hear cases under $50,000 in value or
misdemeanors.
· The other type is the magistrate. We have 39 of those
many of them in small communities in rural Alaska.
They're not appointed by the governor they are
appointed by the four presiding judges of each of the
four judicial districts. They can be hired and fired
by the presiding judge at will. There are many
locations in rural Alaska where the local trooper and
the local part-time magistrate are really the only
major presence of state government.
Now last year our court system, all these judges,
heard 141,000 cases in trial courts. That was about a
nine percent decrease from the year before. The
problem now, a decrease sounds good, the problem is
that the decrease was made up almost entirely of
traffic tickets and other minor offenses, which are
the kind of cases which take the least effort to hear.
There were a number of categories of complex cases
that actually had major increases, that's the bad
news. Felony cases statewide were up six percent from
the previous years' level. At a number of court
locations the increase of felony filings were even
more dramatic.
· Kenai - 14 percent
· Bethel and Ketchikan - 16 percent
· Barrow - 21 percent
· Sitka - 46 percent
· Kotzebue actually had a 62 percent increase in felony
filings.
Now this is bad news because felony cases take a
tremendous amount of resources. Not just time for
clerks and time for judges but when they go to trial
we have to pay juries of 12 persons and several
alternates. These cases - this is also very deceptive
because when I tell you we had 141,000 cases last year
we only count the case the year it's filed. Many of
the cases keep coming back time and time again. When
the convicted felon gets out of prison and he engages
in probation violations on several occasions, when he
comes back and tries to petition for post conviction
relief. We are still expending lots of resources to
hear cases which only showed up in my statistics back
in 1980 or 1990 so that is a little bit deceptive.
We also had a ten percent increase in misdemeanor
cases. We had a five percent increase in the domestic
relations cases the divorces and child custody. This
is a problem because these cases, like felony cases,
keep coming back year after year even though they
don't show up in our statistics. A couple will get
divorced and then every year or every other year for
the next fifteen years they will be back in court
arguing over child support, arguing over visitation,
and these don't show up in our statistics so any
increase is bad news.
Now Mr. Chairman, in addition to the appellate courts
and the trial courts, there is one other entity in the
Alaska Court System, that is the administrative
office. The administrative office are the bureaucrats
like Doug and myself who actually provide the support
services for judges. We run the personnel office, we
handle the procurement, the technology shop, which
handles the courts computers and other systems is all
in the administrative office. This is also
headquartered in Anchorage.
Now the trial courts, the appellate courts and the
administrative office make up the entire court system,
which is 99 percent of the judicial branch. The
remaining one percent of the judicial branch is
composed of two very tiny constitutional entities.
The first is the Judicial Conduct Commission. This
has a staff of two. This is the ethics committee for
judges made up of nine members, three judges, three
public members and three lawyers with at least ten
years experience. Its primary function is to
investigate complaints that have been filed against
judicial officers. It has the power to recommend that
the supreme court sanction or remove a judge.
Suspension, removal, forced retirement or public or
private censure are also among its options.
The other tiny constitutionality is the Alaska
Judicial Council; this is the entity you will deal
with a lot more than you will deal with the conduct
commission. It has three major functions. The first
is to conduct research to improve the administration
of justice. Much of this research is made up of
projects that you have statutorily ordered the council
to engage in. For example when you passed tort reform
legislation a few years back you ordered the council
to start surveying attorneys who settle complex tort
cases to find out what the case is actually settled
for, if there were punitive damages. You also passed
therapeutics courts legislation relating to DWI
several years ago. You ordered the judicial council
to keep track of recidivism for those people who pass
through this special therapeutic court. The second
thing that this judicial council does is it solicits,
screens, and nominates applications for appointments
to vacant judgeships. And finally it evaluates judges
standing for retention and makes information on those
judges available to the voters so that the voters can
make an informed decision. I would note that of all
the Missouri Plan states, the Alaska Judicial Council
makes substantially more information available to the
voters than the other Missouri Plan states. They for
example, they don't just survey the lawyers who appear
in front of a judge, they also survey every police
officer, probation officer, corrections officer in the
jurisdiction to see what they think of the judge.
They survey every juror who has been in that judge's
courtroom. So the voters have a good deal of
information made available to them.
Mr. Chairman, I think I'd like to make one last point
and that is the importance of the legislature and this
committee in the criminal justice system. You are the
entity that sets public policy through the statutes
that you pass. And you most of the time provide
funding to implement that policy. As you consider
legislation I would ask that you always keep in mind
the need to view the criminal justice system as an
integrated whole rather than just individual parts.
The system includes not just the courts it also
includes the prosecutor's office, the public defender,
the office of public advocacy, corrections, DFYS
(Division of Family and Youth Services) and the
Department of Public Safety in the executive branch.
But it also includes the municipal prosecutors in
Anchorage and Juneau, the municipal public defenders
in Anchorage and Juneau as well as the police
departments in all the municipalities around the
state. Things that you do to one entity generally
have an effect on the others. We will frequently see
budget increments or we will see legislation or fiscal
notes that appear to affect only one entity but
there's always a carry over effect. For example if
you give a small budget increment to the troopers to
increase the number of troopers in one community there
is inevitably going to be more arrests which means the
prosecutor has more work, it means we get more work.
If 85 percent of all those people who are arrested for
crimes are legally indigent and thus the...
constitution entitles them to a public defender. Once
a judge has made the decision after viewing someone's
financial records that they're indigent and the judge
appoints the public defender, the public defender has
to take the job, they can't say no we're too busy. If
a judge sentences someone to jail the Department of
Corrections can't say, you know, sorry we're full.
They have to find a way to handle things.
So I guess my point is simply that please view the
system as a system and not merely as a collection of
individual agencies. Always keep in mind that
anything you do to one entity probably affects the
others.
SENATOR OGAN asked what percentage of expenses came from
municipal issued citations and crimes. Alaska is the only state
in the nation where the state adjudicates citations issued by
municipal officers and provides the defense and the prosecution.
MR. CHRISTENSEN explained that presently a lot of police
departments write traffic tickets or cite people for minor
offenses they cannot be jailed for so these people do not get a
public defender. He thought only Anchorage and Juneau have the
equivalent of misdemeanors on their criminal code and actually
do prosecutions. Fairbanks used to do prosecutions but repealed
most of their criminal code because of budget problems some
years ago.
Up until the late 1970s there was a statute that required the
court system to calculate the percentage of its operations being
affected by municipal prosecutions and bill the municipalities.
The Alaska Court System had tremendous problems with Anchorage
because Anchorage did not want to pay. Alaska sued the City of
Anchorage in state court and entered into a settlement. Jurors
are not paid much in Alaska and it is very difficult and
expensive to find parking in downtown Anchorage. The settlement
involved about eight years of free parking for jurors in the
municipal garage seven blocks from the courthouse among other
things.
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted the legislature repealed that statute when
the state was flush with oil money. The argument frequently
made against bringing back this legislation is that while
Anchorage, Juneau and the police departments in the other cities
cause expense to the state they also relieve the state of a
tremendous burden. Anchorage has DWI laws that parallel the
states and have domestic violence statutes and assault statutes.
Anchorage pays for the prosecutor and public defender when they
charge people under their own law. Anchorage contracts with a
private law firm to act as their public defender. Mr.
Christensen believed Anchorage has to reimburse the Department
of Corrections for housing in the jail. The state would assume
that expense if these people were arrested and charged under
state law. He said the court computer system is currently so
inadequate, what percentage of cases comes from municipalities
could be determined, but not how much time was spent on them.
SENATOR OGAN said he would like to meet privately with Mr.
Christensen and discuss that issue. He said it may be time to
look at municipalities assuming some of the responsibility for
the citations they write that go to court. "Have a municipal
court system or something like that and taxpayers, local
taxpayers and fines and that kind of thing pay for." He asked
how much it would reduce the state's cost if the Legislature did
that.
MR. CHRISTENSEN noted the Alaska Court System handout. Page 5
lists "FY2002 Funds Collected on behalf of Cities and Boroughs"
totaling $1,270,892. This money was turned over to
municipalities and presumably reduced the municipalities' need
to come to the legislature for municipal assistance.
SENATOR OGAN said it would be interesting to see how much it
cost the State of Alaska to adjudicate those cases and turn over
$1.2 million to the cities. He thought it would be more than
$1.2 million.
SENATOR ELLIS asked how the therapeutic courts were doing and
for details about other specialized courts and innovations of
the Alaska Court System.
MR. CHRISTENSEN informed the committee that therapeutic courts
cropped up in the nation in the last ten years. A therapeutic
court treats people with special kinds of problems, typically
addictions to alcohol or drugs or those with mental illness.
They use a different method of court procedure to keep these
people out of jail, get them the treatment they need and then
"hopefully" they won't commit future crimes.
The first of these therapeutic courts are drug courts, which
take in non-violent felony drug offenders. The Alaska Court
System set up a drug court in Anchorage several years ago using
a federal grant. Most of the grant moneys were distributed to
the prosecutor, the public defender, and other agencies
incurring costs. The judge acts as a super probation officer
and sees the person every week or two and a probation officer
monitors the person very closely. The person receives weekly
drug tests or alcohol tests and is required to pay restitution.
These people volunteer and are accepted by a joint decision
between the judge, the prosecutor and the public defender. If
this court system works, people who have committed non-violent
drug felonies can get off drugs, complete a GED (General
Education Degree), get a job and get their life back in order.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said the misdemeanor mental health court is
being operated in Anchorage. The Trustees of the Mental Health
Trust fund this court with legislative approval. This court
deals with people with serious mental problems who are
committing "nuisance crimes" like disorderly conduct, simple
assault and shoplifting. The person is monitored very closely
and in court on a weekly basis. Seeing that people receive
medication is one of the main points of this court. Alaska is
the second state in the country to start this type of court. He
thought the mental health court is very effective.
The Legislature created and provided general funds for a felony
DWI court two years ago in Anchorage and Bethel. Judge
Wanamaker in Anchorage, on his own initiative, got together with
the Partners for Progress, a local business organization and
created the Wellness Court, which deals with people who have
committed minor alcohol related nuisance crimes and treats them
with naltrexone. Naltrexone is a drug that makes a person lose
their desire to drink by doing away with the high from alcohol.
This is funded primarily through the private sector though in
the last year or two the Legislature has given some small grants
directly to the Partners for Progress for treatment money.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said these courts seem to be working; however,
they have been in operation for a short period of time and
involve a small number of people so it is difficult to say.
They were started with grants because the court system did not
want to come to the Legislature for money until they could prove
these courts could work. The Alaska Judicial Council is
currently doing comprehensive surveys of most of these courts
and the Legislature will receive an independent review. There
should be detailed preliminary information available for the
committee shortly.
SENATOR FRENCH referred to "FY02 Collections of Costs and Fees
Imposed by Courts" on page 7, Alaska Court System. He asked if
the cost of appointed counsel, $883,259, and the cost of
incarceration, $762,325, was money collected from criminal
defendants. He asked if criminal restitution, $91,464, was the
total amount of criminal restitution paid into the system.
MR. CHRISTENSEN said it was his understanding this is the amount
collected by the Department of Law. He did not think that was
the total amount of criminal restitution paid in the state
during the year. Some restitution is paid directly and some is
paid through the Department of Law.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if these costs were prioritized. If the
court collects $1000 from a defendant who owes $10,000 for
appointed counsel, $10,000 for cost of incarceration and $10,000
for restitution, how does that money get allocated and in what
order?
MR. CHRISTENSEN said virtually every penny the Department of Law
seizes is from Permanent Fund Dividends. This is typically
restitution and debts owed to the state.
TAPE 03-02, SIDE B
2:20 p.m.
MR. DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, said statute applies
to attachments to the Permanent Fund Dividend itself. If
someone writes a check to the court for $1000 and they owe
$1500, how that gets divided up is not set by statute. The
dividend is one of the reasons the Collection Division of the
Department of Law has a miraculously high collection rate for
criminal fines compared to any other state. Restitution is
either first or second on the list of collection priorities.
Child support is also very high and debts owed the state are a
little bit farther down the list. Private people can also
attach the dividend. Often there will be competing demands on a
dividend.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if it was a one-year windfall because most
people who go to prison for any length of time lose their right
to a dividend.
MR. WOOLIVER said there are statutes that restrict the number of
people who get the dividend based on criminal charges. In
future years these people could become eligible again so
sometimes the collection process is drawn out.
MR. CHRISTENSEN referred to page 7, where Senator French noted
the cost of appointed counsel being $883,259. He explained that
about 85 percent of people charged with felonies are legally
indigent and are provided with an attorney by the state. About
7 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that
indicated a person's future income could be taken into account.
The Alaska Supreme Court said when a person is indigent, a
payment schedule can be set up and take some of their dividend.
Legislation was drafted and adopted about 6 years ago. Little
money was collected over the first couple of years but over the
last two years, this has expanded dramatically up into the
$880,000 range.
CHAIR SEEKINS called at ease from 2:25 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Mr. Wooliver what he wanted to add
about specialized courts.
MR. WOOLIVER explained these courts are fairly new nationwide.
A long-term study of recidivism rates would be available in the
next few months. The short-term studies show these courts do
cut down on recidivism. Judge Rhoades' mental health court in
Anchorage has impressive short-term statistics. All these
studies seem to indicate these courts are helping.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if there was a standard, uniform definition
of non-violent offender. He said he was of the opinion there is
cost saving to the state to be achieved by effective treatment
programs to divert people away from state incarceration. People
worry about violent offenders being included in a treatment
program and not incarcerated. He asked who makes the non-
violent determination.
MR. WOOLIVER was not aware of a standard definition. The felony
drug and felony DWI courts have strict guidelines on who can
participate and a history of violence excludes someone from the
program. Judge Wanamaker and Judge Rhoades are both nationally
recognized leaders in this area and they speak all over the
country. HB 171 created the therapeutic courts and the
guidelines that limit participants to non-violent offenders.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further questions Chair Seekins adjourned the
meeting at 2:35 p.m.
NOTE: The meeting was recorded and handwritten log notes were
taken. A copy of the tape(s) and log notes may be obtained by
contacting the Senate Records Office at State Capitol, Room 3,
Juneau, Alaska 99801 (mailing address), (907) 465-2870, and
after adjournment of the second session of the 23rd Alaska State
Legislature this information may be obtained by contacting the
Legislative Reference Library at (907) 465-3808.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|