Legislature(2025 - 2026)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/20/2025 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| Presentation: Adding a Faculty Member to the Ua Board of Regents | |
| Presentation: Department of Law Overview Functions and Current Litigation | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 20, 2025
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Scott Kawasaki, Chair
Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Vice Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
Senator Robert Yundt
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ADDING A FACULTY MEMBER TO THE UA BOARD OF REGENTS
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF LAW OVERVIEW FUNCTIONS AND CURRENT
LITIGATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JENNIFER WARD, Library Faculty
University of Alaska Southeast
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-delivered a presentation on adding a
faculty regent to the University of Alaska Board of Regents.
BRIAN BLITZ, Professor
University of Alaska Southeast
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-delivered a presentation on adding a
faculty regent to the University of Alaska Board of Regents.
MATTHEW CUELLAR, Professor
University of Anchorage
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified by invitation on adding a faculty
seat to the University of Alaska Board of Regents.
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the Alaska Department of Law
overview.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:08 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Gray-Jackson, Yundt, and Chair Kawasaki.
Senators Bjorkman and Wielechowski arrived thereafter.
^PRESENTATION: ADDING A FACULTY MEMBER TO THE UA BOARD OF
REGENTS
PRESENTATION: ADDING A FACULTY MEMBER TO THE UA BOARD OF REGENTS
3:31:17 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI announced the presentation Adding a Faculty
Member to the UA Board of Regents.
3:32:20 PM
JENNIFER WARD, Library Faculty, University of Alaska Southeast,
Juneau, Alaska, co-delivered the presentation on adding a
faculty regent to the University of Alaska Board of Regents (UA
BOR) and moved to slide 2. She named the different bodies that
have been in support of adding a faculty regent since 2017.
3:34:12 PM
MS. WARD moved to slide 4 and stated that a few reasons to have
a faculty regent on the BOR would be to strengthen decision
making and university governance, supporting the university's
public mission. She said they are advocating for an experienced
academic professor with tenure. The faculty academic perspective
is an important supplement to the business acumen of other
regents.
3:35:06 PM
BRIAN BLITZ, Professor, University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau,
Alaska, co-delivered the presentation on adding a faculty member
to the UA Board of Regents and moved to slide 5. He referenced
current UAS faculty member Mary Wegner as saying she found it
helpful for a member of the school board to have the knowledge
gained through the classroom experience. He stated that the same
benefit can apply to the board of regents and having a faculty
member share valuable insight with other members.
3:35:46 PM
MS. WARD moved to slide 6 and showed a list of universities that
currently have a faculty regent. She said the California State
University Board of Trustees includes two faculty members as
trustees and the State University of New York (SUNY) has
eighteen members with one student and one faculty member.
3:36:20 PM
MR. BLITZ moved to slide 7 and stated that a student regent
brings the student perspective to board decisions and helps
peers understand how the board and system work. He stated that
the student regents often go on to become engaged, informed
Alaska citizens, which may be the greatest long-term benefit.
3:37:03 PM
MR. BLITZ moved to slide 8, and spoke about the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
A Faculty Regent Would Enhance Communication &
Understanding.
As a BOR member, a Faculty Regent would:
• listen to the Faculty Alliance, other governance,
and chancellor reports & ask questions
• participate and speak throughout BOR meetings to
illuminate potential impacts on student learning,
faculty teaching, & research
• participate in BOR committee work
• provide the faculty and research perspective to
issues under discussion by the BOR
• recuse themselves when conflicts of interest
arise
• gain an understanding of the complexities faced
by the BOR & communicate these complexities back
to the faculty body
3:38:18 PM
MS. WARD moved to slide 9, and spoke about the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Current faculty involvement in UA's BOR
• Faculty Alliance chair presents a 7 minute report
at the BOR's quarterly meetings
• Faculty Alliance chair cannot otherwise speak at
BOR meetings unless directly asked a question or
upon closing comments
• Faculty Alliance chair DOES participate in BOR
committee work as an ex-officio committee member
MS. WARD stated that the alliance leadership meets with
President Pitney and Vice President of Academic Affairs monthly,
the meetings have developed a good relationship but its not
adequate for communicating issues.
3:39:31 PM
MR. BLITZ moved to slide 10 and explained the structure of UA
faculty leadership. He stated that all the University of Alaska
schools have their own faculty senate, the three senates make up
a faculty alliance.
3:40:18 PM
MR. BLITZ moved to slide 11, and spoke about the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
A Few Details on Faculty Senates, UA Administration,
United Academics and the UA BOR.
UA faculty (through faculty senates) have primary
responsibility over curriculum and degree content.
UA administration has primary responsibility for
ensuring the UA mission is met, UA policies and sound
academic practices are followed, & the institution is
positively perceived by the public.
UA's BOR has primary responsibility for ensuring that
UA stays true to its mission & has the financial
resources it needs to operate successfully; the BOR
possesses final decision-making authority.
UA's faculty union, United Academics, protects faculty
working conditions through collective bargaining and
represents approximately 1,100 faculty and
postdoctoral fellows in the bargaining unit throughout
the UA system.
3:41:01 PM
MS. WARD moved to slide 12, and spoke about the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Selecting the faculty Regent
• mirror selection process for student regent
-each Faculty Senate provides a short list of
names to the Faculty Alliance (FA)
-FA chair submits a comprehensive list of
nominees to the governor for selection
-Governor makes final selection
• limited to tenured faculty to ensure their
protection & depth of knowledge of the UA system
• limited to two-year terms to limit interruption
to faculty regent's professional and personal
life
3:41:38 PM
MS. WARD moved to slide 13, and spoke about the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What about conflicts of interest?
Faculty members would recuse themselves when the BOR
discusses items that present conflicts of interest
(CBA approval, elimination of the faculty member's
program, etc)
Student regents are trusted to recuse themselves when
the BOR discusses items that present conflicts of
interest (tuition increases, program elimination, etc)
Every member of the BOR will have a potential conflict
of interest during their 8-year term (UA programs that
compete with their businesses,
children/grandchildren's athletic or academic
programs, etc)
3:42:08 PM
MR. BLITZ moved to slide 14 and spoke about a tie vote not being
an issue because in terms of voting a majority wins. He gave an
example that a 6-6 vote is not a majority, so no one wins.
3:42:38 PM
MS. WARD moved to slide 15, and spoke about the following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Other Boards Include Stakeholders Similar to a Faculty
Member on the BOR.
• Hospital boards regularly include doctors
• Alaska Board of Fisheries includes a variety of
fishers (subsistence, commercial, recreational)
• Construction boards include architects
• UA BOR includes a student regent
3:43:01 PM
MS. WARD moved to slide 16 and stated that the Iditarod Board
includes a musher.
3:43:15 PM
MS. WARD moved to slide 17 and stated that this is a positive
step for the University of Alaska. Faculty input will strengthen
board communication and decision-making, ensuring better
governance and understanding of higher education needs and
standards.
3:44:15 PM
MATTHEW CUELLAR, Professor, University of Anchorage, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified by invitation on adding a faculty seat to the
University of Alaska Board of Regents. He said adding a faculty
seat to the Board of Regents would benefit faculty, students,
and the university by improving representation and
collaboration, protecting academic integrity, and supporting
more informed decision-making. He stated that adding a faculty
regent to the University of Alaska's Board of Regents is in the
best interest of the university system and will enhance the
university's role in role in public assets.
3:45:19 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked whether there is a current faculty member
serving as one of the 11 members on the Board of Regents and is
there anything in law that prevents the governor from appointing
a member faculty to the board.
3:45:58 PM
MR. BLITZ answered he doesn't know.
CHAIR KAWASAKI opined that with no law preventing a faculty
member from being on the BOR, it wouldn't be unusual for faculty
to be a board member.
MR. BLITZ stated that there has not been a member of faculty on
the UA Board of Regents for the last 25 years.
3:47:23 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked why the universities wouldn't want to
designate a faculty regent a full eight-year term to the board.
He said there has been legislation that designated there should
be a member from the Matsu on the board because the Matsu had
been unrepresented in prior years.
3:48:05 PM
MR. BLITZ explained that universities would prefer not to give a
faculty regent an eight-year term because the university wants
representation from various disciplines and institutions in the
eight-year term. He stated that serving on the board also takes
faculty away from their faculty workload. He suggested a two-
year term would be more appropriate.
3:49:24 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI stated that there has been a bill that has come
up in past legislatures. He said the committee didn't invite the
Board of Regents or university staff this meeting, but in the
past, they've opposed this idea. He asked why the board members
wouldn't support having a faculty member serve on the Board of
Regents, even for a two-year term.
3:50:01 PM
MR. BLITZ said he assumed it would be a conflict of interest. He
stated that for the last ten years the union and administration
have been in conflict.
3:50:24 PM
MS. WARD added that some people might believe it is easier not
to have a faculty regent in order to maintain the status quo.
She opined to have a faculty regent would improve communication
and understanding between faculty and administration.
3:51:54 PM
At ease.
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF LAW OVERVIEW FUNCTIONS AND CURRENT
LITIGATION
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF LAW OVERVIEW FUNCTIONS AND CURRENT
LITIGATION
3:52:46 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the
presentation Department of Law Overview Functions and Current
Litigation.
3:53:27 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Department
of Law (DOL), Anchorage, Alaska, presented the Alaska Department
of Law overview and moved to slide 2. She spoke about the
following:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What does the civil division do?
The civil division provides high-quality legal
services to the executive branch through litigation,
agency advice, research, legislative drafting,
regulatory review, case management, and fostering good
governance.
3:54:40 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 3 and stated there are 144 attorney
positions within the Department of Law, Civil Division, with
about 250 employees' total. She stated that the pie chart breaks
down the hours the Civil Division worked for each department in
FY2024. She stated that the Department of Public Safety (DPS)
doesn't get as much help from the Civil Division because DPS
gets most of its legal help from the Criminal Division. She said
the Civil Division's largest customer is the Department of
Family and Community Services (DFCS) because within the DFCS
there is the Office of Children Services and Alaska Psychiatric
Institute.
3:56:26 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 4, Hours billed by core mission
categories and explained the pie chart showing the percentage of
hours billed to the core mission categories, or core categories
of legal representation. She stated that the largest chunk of
hours is billed on legal representation, which pertains to
courtroom litigation. She continued to speak about the other
categories listed.
3:57:39 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 5, Civil Division Organization and
explained a chart that shows the committee how the Civil
Division operates. She mentioned the green boxes represent
budget components and within those components are different
departments.
3:58:04 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 6 and discussed the resource
development and infrastructure components. First, she discussed
the Environmental Section of this budget component stating it
works closely with the legislature and gets more media attention
than some other sections. The Environmental Section handles
enforcement action, issues permits and defends the permits in
court, working both proactive and defensive litigation. Second,
the Transportation Section handles a lot of condemnation cases
like securing land and compensating owners for projects.
Transportation also faces defense litigation, challenges with
documentation and the National Environmental Policy Act. Third,
the Oil and Gas Section involves both proactive and defensive
litigation. This section proactively files lawsuits for unpaid
royalties and taxes and defends the state in disputes over
leases with oil and gas companies. Lastly, the Natural Resources
Section does a lot of statehood defense litigation. This section
works defensive litigation for Fish and Game including anything
from Board of Fisheries, Board of Game and any permitting and
lawsuits.
4:00:29 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 7, and discussed the Health, Safety and
Welfare budget component. She stated that this component
includes the Child Protection Section. Each year the Civil
Division handles 5,000 litigation matters and around 3,000 are
child in need of aid cases for the Office of Children's
Services. The attorneys are constantly in court aiming for
resolution even if that means termination of parental rights.
Children's cases generate many appeals that get solved with a 90
percent success rate by the appellate team. She said the Human
Services Section covers public assistance issues, including
ongoing benefits related cases and backlogs. Working in tandem
with the Alaska Psychiatric Institute, Human Services also
handles mental health commitments to protect individuals or
others from harm. She stated that Human Services oversee
guardianships and conservatorships to protect vulnerable adults.
She stated that Mr. Waller heads up the Regulatory Affairs and
Public Advocacy Section. This section works to keep utility
rates reasonable for Alaskans commonly appearing before the
regulatory commission of Alaska in major rate proceedings.
4:03:02 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 8, Special Litigation and Appeals
budget component which includes Special Litigation and Opinions,
Appeals and Ethics Sections. She stated that Special Litigation
and Appeals handles complex high-stakes cases including
constitutional issues and urgent election matters. This section
works with subject experts from other sections and help see
cases through. The Special Litigation and Opinions Section also
enforces consumer protection and antitrust laws, managing
multistate cases like opioid litigation and recent auto dealer
and motorhome company issues. The Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics
Section handles cases after the superior court, taking over at
the appellate level, including the Alaska Supreme Court and
federal circuits. This section focuses mainly on child
protection and mental health commitment appeals, serving as the
final stage in most litigation.
4:04:56 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 9, the Government Services budget
component which include these three sections: Legislation,
Regulation and Legislative Research - oversees all legislative
drafting and regulations projects for state agencies
Profession Development and Public Service - oversees fellowship
and internship programs
Project Support (IPS) - advises on the Public Records Act and
Disclosure of Information.
4:05:36 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 10, Civil Defense Litigation which
includes sections on Torts, Workers' Compensation and
Corrections. She stated that this budget component is a
significant part of Civil Divisions caseload. This component
works closely with risk management to defend the state in
various tort lawsuitsfor example, if someone slips and falls on
state property, this component steps in to represent the state.
Civil Defense Litigation also handles workers' compensation
claims brought against the state as an employer. A major source
of litigation comes from the Department of Corrections, which
faces a high volume of lawsuits, currently around 250 active
cases. Given the nature of the corrections system and the time
inmates have, litigation is frequent. This component is
responsible for defending the state in these types of civil
lawsuits.
4:06:44 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 11 and 12. She stated that these two
slides contain the highlights for each six components of the
division.
4:07:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many attorneys are employed by
the Department of Law.
4:07:34 PM
MS. MILLS answered there are just under 300 attorneys between the
criminal and civil divisions.
4:07:44 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many lawyers are needed at the
Department of Law.
MS. MILLS answered that the corrections caseload is busting at
the seams but, the DOL is collaborating with the Department of
Corrections to address this. She stated that overall, the
division is in a good position, with improvements in vacancy
rates thanks to the legislature and salary increases. She said
there is a shortage of graduating law students, leading to fewer
applicants and more competition with the private and public
sectors. She said as a result, new attorneys tend to be less
experienced, requiring more mentorship and professional
development. She explained that a new section was made called
professional development and public service to focus on the
development of young attorneys and improve retention, ensuring
they stay long enough to become productive.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the average salary for attorneys
and the average turnover rate.
MS. MILLS answered that most of the attorneys in the division
currently have fewer than four years of experience. In terms of
turnover, there was a significant loss of 93 out of 144 civil
attorneys over a five-year period, primarily due to COVID. She
stated that recently, turnover has improved, with the main
concern being upcoming retirements. The DOL has about 25
attorneys that are expected to retire in the next five years.
She said retention has been better in the last few years, but
competition with the private sector remains a challenge.
4:11:44 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the number of cases that use
outside council.
MS. MILLS answered that the majority of cases use in house
council. She stated that outside council may be used for
litigation, special expertise, or high-profile cases. She
explained that outside council was used more frequently about
four years ago when the workload was higher.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if she anticipates fewer cases
against the federal government with a new federal administration
in place.
MS. MILLS answered that the current situation is uncertain, and
it's difficult to predict. She stated there are many requests
for continuances as the administration figures out a direction
to go. She opined that litigation will increase over the next
two years due to over 80 ongoing cases that won't be going away
anytime soon, along with potential new cases brought by other
parties. She continued that after the two years, a decline in
litigation is expected, leading to a more stable situation.
4:14:35 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the claim that challenges
Count 3 Section 504 [of the Rehabilitation Act] as
unconstitutional in the Texas vs Becerra case was being
withdrawn.
MS. MILLS answered that the claim challenging Section 504 as
unconstitutional has not been withdrawn yet. She said a joint
status report was filed recently with thirteen or fourteen other
states, clarifying the intent of the claim. She stated that the
plaintiffs do not plan to ask the court to enjoin Section 504 or
declare it unconstitutional on its face. The claim is an "as-
applied" challenge to a specific rule, arguing that if the rule
is deemed to fit within the Rehabilitation Act, that
interpretation would be unconstitutional.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that Section 504 prohibits
discrimination against disabled individuals by any entities
receiving federal funding. He asked if Section 504 includes the
15 percent of students in Alaska with an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP)roughly 20,000 K-12 students.
MS. MILLS answered that the funding of Section 504 for services
under Medicaid is not at risk from this lawsuit. She stated that
the concern is a rule interpreting Section 504 under Medicaid
creates inconsistencies that make it difficult for providers to
meet the standards, potentially leading them to stop offering
services. She continued that the goal is to revert to the
previous system to ensure continued funding and service
provision. She stated that while the issue is complex, the
intent is not to stop funding, but to address the challenges
posed by the new rule's requirements.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it's still the intention to not
seek a strike down of Section 504.
MS. MILLS answered that the claim was poorly drafted and does
[Department of Law] not intend to seek a strike-down of Section
504. A court document has been filed to clarify this position,
under penalty of perjury.
4:19:24 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked if adjusting the state's caps on non-
economic relief awards for wrongful death ($400,000) and
personal injury ($1,000,000) to better reflect an actuarial
value of someone's life or limb impact the Department of Law.
4:19:55 PM
MS. MILLS answered that with increasing the caps on non-economic
relief for wrongful death and personal injury could impact the
state budget and risk management pool by leading to higher
payouts in settlements or judgments. The Department of Law is
generally successful at managing and keeping damages within
appropriate ranges, higher caps would likely result in more
lawsuits and potentially more money being paid out. She stated
that adjusting the caps would be a policy decision for the
legislature and executive branch to make.
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked whether adjusting the cap to reflect more
accurate actuarial value would influence industry, state
agencies, or others to take greater care to avoid killing or
injuring people.
MS. MILLS answered that various factors influence decisions but
compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is already one of
the more litigious societies. She stated she is uncertain how
much of a difference increasing the caps will make.
4:22:17 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked whether the attorney general or governor
directs the state's participation in cases and how those
decisions are made.
4:23:17 PM
MS. MILLS answered that the decision to join a multistate case
is made through a consultation process between the attorney
general and the governor, considering whether the case aligns
with state interests. She stated that the attorney general's
office provides legal services to the executive branch and
reviews the case internally. A lead attorney is assigned to work
with other states to ensure the state's interests are
represented. She stated that the lack of clarity might be
because the case may not be fully briefed yet, and the complaint
was initially a notice pleading.
CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if the attorney general is the decision
maker.
MS. MILLS answered that the decision to join a multistate
lawsuit rest with the attorney general, in consultation with the
governor.
CHAIR KAWASAKI stated that Section 504 should not be declared
unconstitutional due to its importance for disabled veterans and
children with IEPs. He stated that the case also raised concerns
related to gender ideology. He asked if the attorney general
signed on to the brief that seeks to strike down Section 504
because the case relates to gender ideology.
MS. MILLS stated that the state's primary concern in joining the
lawsuit was not related to gender ideology, but to a provision
in the rule regarding the adoption of the most integrated
setting and the at serious risk of institutionalization of
standards of care. She said the state believed the metrics were
vague, created significant burdens for providers, and were
almost impossible to meet. She said the state of Alaska and the
Department of Health argued that the rule mischaracterized the
Olmstead decision especially in Alaska's vast geography with
limited mental health services. She stated that there were
concerns with the threat of losing Medicaid funding if the
standards were not met.
4:27:57 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that the State of Alaska faces a
significant issue regarding its reliance on natural gas with 70
percent of the state's energy coming from natural gas. He said
with Hilcorp controlling 90 percent of the natural gas leases in
the region, the Federal Trade Commission were worried they could
manipulate prices or withhold gas. He said a consent decree gave
the attorney general authority to monitor Hilcorp's compliance
with drilling, production, and exploration obligations. He asked
if the attorney general has ever conducted an investigation or
taken any action to ensure that consumers are protected from
potential antitrust behavior.
4:30:09 PM
MS. MILLS answered that the attorney general's office cannot
discuss specifics about whether an investigation is underway.
She confirmed even without the consent decree; the office has
the authority to investigate potential antitrust violations. She
said the office will work in consultation with the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), as DNR is the expert in ensuring
production, while the attorney general's office focuses on
consumer protection.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that last year, Hilcorp threatened
to shut down production in Cook Inlet if the legislature didn't
rescind an amendment to close the S-Corp loophole. He said the
legislature withdrew the action after the threat. He opined that
this behavior seems like an abuse of market power. He asked if
the attorney general's office will be monitoring the situation.
MS. MILLS responded that she will talk with the attorney general
about the letter and how they intend to respond.
4:32:42 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked about the state's obligation to
adequately fund education and whether the state follows court
orders in the Moore and Kasayulie cases.
MS. MILLS answered that the DOL hasn't received clear court
guidance on what qualifies as adequate funding. She stated that
in the Moore and Kasayulie cases, the judge didn't address
funding levels but focused on outcomes, telling the state to
step in and find a solution. That led to a settlement about
ensuring rural REAA districts were treated equally with urban
school districts in terms of facility funding. She stated that
since rural districts lack revenue streams, the court emphasized
fairness but didn't set specific funding standards.
4:35:02 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI said a few years ago, the Kenai grand jury was
investigating potential corruption within both the judicial
branch and possibly the Department of Law. He continued that the
Supreme Court intervened and implemented rules regarding the
powers of grand juries. He asked to hear thoughts on that rule
and whether people have felt like they can be open and expose
potential corruption.
4:35:41 PM
MS. MILLS explained that the process of grand jury
investigations are largely managed by prosecutors, as mandated
by the Supreme Court but the attorney general has the
gatekeeping role. She stated that the attorney general
determines whether petitions to open grand jury investigations
are valid. She said several applications have been received,
with some applications resulting in grand jury investigations
and others being denied for not meeting the required threshold.
She said the department is working to make the process
transparent by having a committee review applications to ensure
they meet constitutional criteria before submission to the
attorney general for a final decision.
4:37:48 PM
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked who is responsible for investigating
credible corruption claims within the court system and the
Department of Law.
4:38:56 PM
MS. MILLS stated that law enforcement can investigate criminal
conduct if there is suspicion of a crime; the Judicial Conduct
Commission handles complaints about judges; while the Alaska Bar
Association addresses concerns about attorney ethics. She said
the Ombudsman's Office, which operates independently within the
legislative branch, investigates systemic corruption within
state government. She stated that there is a constitutional
provision for an investigative grand jury focused on public
safety and welfare. She emphasized that the public could submit
concerns for review.
SENATOR BJORKMAN asked what legislative changes would be
recommended to establish how an investigative grand jury is
initiated, who should oversee it, and how it can remain separate
from the judicial system and the Department of Law. He opined
the attorney general should not be the gatekeeper.
MS. MILLS agreed the attorney general should not be the
gatekeeper for the investigative grand jury process. She stated
that someone in Department of Law is currently focused on making
the existing process more transparent and exploring future
options. She said while the Department of Law doesn't have an
immediate solution, they are open to continued discussions and
are actively working on finding a way forward.
4:43:25 PM
CHAIR KAWASAKI stated that unlike Alaska, some states elect
their attorney general, creating a different dynamic. He said
legislators are subject to investigations through the
legislative ethics committee made up of both lawmakers and
citizens. He stated that the committee is an important check and
balance giving people the right to challenge the actions of
legislators.
4:44:19 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the deputy attorney general can
address the issue of prosecutorial delays. He said there was an
article in the Anchorage Daily News discussing the delays in
prosecutions. The article includes a sexual assault case from
2017 that was witnessed by police and others and had DNA
evidence. That case was delayed 50 time before going to trial
seven years later. He stated that the article also mentioned in
the past year, only seven criminal cases went to trial within
the 120-day limit. He asked what was needed from the legislature
to help speed up the process and whether she believes the
situation has been resolved.
4:45:05 PM
MS. MILLS said she is not the best person to discuss
prosecutorial delays but knows Director Kemp and Deputy Attorney
General Skidmore have addressed the issue in other hearings. She
emphasized the Department of Law does not want delays and is
working to document the departments readiness for trial to make
it clear the department is committed to moving cases forward.
She mentioned that there are various reasons for delays and
encouraged the committee to hear directly from Director Kemp and
Deputy Attorney General Skidmore, who have been dealing with the
court system, defense, and the overall criminal justice system,
particularly after COVID.
4:47:26 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Kawasaki adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting at 4:47 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| PRESENTATION_ Adding a Faculty Regent to the BOR 2.18.2025.pdf |
SSTA 2/20/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| S STA Committee Thursday FINAL.pdf |
SSTA 2/20/2025 3:30:00 PM |
Departmant of Law Presentation |