SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21 Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska to increase the number of members on the judicial council and relating to the initial terms of new members appointed to the judicial council. 9:09:18 AM Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ask unanimous consent to RESCIND the committee's previous action on SJR 21. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 9:09:35 AM Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee substitute for SJR 21, Work Draft 28-LS1364\P (Wallace, 3\28\14) as a working document. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. 9:10:00 AM Co-Chair Kelly commented that what the committee had previously voted on was to increase the number of public members on the judicial council in order to allow the practical establishment of more regional diversity on the council. Secondly, because there were 3 public members and 3 attorney members, there were times when those two groups had an even split on a nominee; the split put the Supreme Court Justice in the position of having a conflict of interest as they voted with one side or the other. He explained that there were concerns that justices could have an influence on choosing colleagues that would agree with their views. He had discovered that the biggest concern that people had with the state's constitution regarding the judicial council was that the attorney members were not required to be confirmed by the legislature; however, the public members had to go through the confirmation process just like the other state boards. He thought that there was support to pass the resolution on the floor with the previous CS, but that it made sense to address the glaring concerns regarding the attorney members of the board being beyond the scrutiny of elected officials; he offered that having the attorney members be beyond the scrutiny of the legislature did not sit well "our" way of life and how almost every other part of our government and constitution worked. He observed that in the new CS, the Alaska Bar Association would still appoint the 3 attorney members, but that the appointees would come before the legislature to be confirmed. He added there was also language in the CS that addressed a quorum, but that his staff would speak to those changes. 9:13:09 AM Co-Chair Meyer wanted the public to be aware that public testimony would not be taken on the CS because the committee had already taken public testimony on the previous version. 9:13:49 AM HEATHER SHADDUCK, STAFF, SENATOR PETE KELLY, spoke to the changes reflected in Version P. The first change could be found on Page 1, lines 10 and 11: The three attorney members and six non-attorney  members shall be subject to confirmation be a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session. Ms. Shadduck noted that the next change could be found on Page 2, lines 2 and 3: The judicial council shall act by a majority vote of a  quorum of at least seven members and according to rules which it adopts. Ms. Shadduck explained that the language had been change in order for a quorum to be more easily attainable. 9:15:02 AM Co-Chair Kelly noted that the 7 members still kept the committee's desire to not have the Supreme Court Justice in the position of having a possible conflict of interest. He further explained that having 7 members on the judicial council, instead of 6, removed the need for the Supreme Court Justice to break a possible tie. 9:15:32 AM Ms. Shadduck stated that there had been concern that without a quorum threshold, the judicial council might conduct business with only 2 members; however, it was not the sponsors' intent. She pointed out that putting in a quorum at a higher threshold ensured that all voices would be heard. 9:16:12 AM NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, stated that the Supreme Court had not given her direction on the confirmation of attorney members by the legislature. She pointed out that the issue had not been an oversight in the constitutional convention; there had been extensive discussion regarding the decision to not have attorney members approved by the legislature. She stated that the reasoning of the constitutional framers was that the attorney members should be free from any thinking of whether a nominee would be acceptable to the legislature, whether republican or democrat. She opined that the constitutional founders had wanted the attorney members to be clear of political hurdles so that the bar membership could put the best people on the Judicial Council without having the concern of whether that person would pass muster in the legislative confirmation process. She concluded that not requiring attorney members to be confirmed by the legislature was not an oversight, but was a purposeful decision by the constitutional founders. Ms. Meade furthered that the court opposed the resolution because of the imbalance in the number of public members versus attorney members. The concern was that with the imbalance, there was substantial potential for public members to choose applicants to submit to the governor based on considerations other than the applicant's qualifications to be a quality judge. She responded to a previous question from Vice-Chair Fairclough and noted that the Judicial Council did play a large role in the retention of judges and not just in the selection and screening process. She explained that the Judicial Council came up with recommendations on whether a judge should or should not be retained and that the information was published in the voter information pamphlet. She explained that the council ascertained its opinion of a judge by surveying law enforcement, court staff, jurors, social workers, volunteer Court Appointed and Special Advocates (CASA) workers; it also conducted public hearings and looked at a judge's case files, performance, and records of reversal on appeal. The court's concern was the threat of retaliation for any judge that made a decision that was contrary to the governor's position. She did not believe that the resolution did service to the Alaska Court System or Alaskans. 9:21:41 AM Co-Chair Kelly asserted that the bill dealt with regional diversification on the Judicial Council. He pointed out that the only 2 rural members that had been on the council were both public members; the last rural member was in 1987, from Barrow; and the one before that was 1961, from Kotzebue. He believed that by adding the extra public members, the governor would have the opportunity to expand rural representation. He suggested that the framers of Alaska's constitution had made an oversight in assuring adequate representation, for all groups, stretching across a great expanse. He asserted that even judges should be held accountable by the public. He warned that the judicial system should not become arrogant in believing it could escape the scrutiny of the people of Alaska. He likened the council to the board of barbers and hairdressers and believed that its members should be equally scrutinized. 9:27:02 AM Senator Olson thought that having more members on the council would increase the chances of having rural members on the board. He commented there had been two judicial council members from his district, but none from Senator Hoffman's district. 9:27:32 AM Co-Chair Kelly MOVED to REPORT CSSJR 21(2d FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSSJR 21(2d FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a previously published fiscal impact note: FN1(GOV) and a previously published fiscal impact note: FN2(CRT). 9:27:51 AM AT EASE 9:32:10 AM RECONVENED