Members of the conference committee met to reconcile conflicting House and Senate language in bill 26.14, the measure setting governance rules for the state public defense commission and related operations. The meeting centered on differences over removal standards for commissioners and the executive director, who selects the executive director, the definition of the judicial member, and differing implementation dates in each chamber’s version.

The committee chair, Chair Pratt, opened the meeting saying the goal was to “make sure we left this meeting with a full understanding of the 2 different versions of this, of 26.14 that exist now.” Jillian, a staff member who walked members through the bills’ differences, summarized the Senate changes and contrasted them with the House language: “The amendment adopted by the Senate changes the process or adds a process for removal of members by the governor of the Commission.” She explained the Senate language adds a procedural rule that if “the governor removes 3 or more members of the commission within a 12 month period preceding removal, then that changes to only being allowed to remove them for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.”

Jillian also described differences in the bill’s language about firing standards for the executive director: “Another change in the bill that was adopted by the House, the governor may remove the executive director or members of the commission for cause in the amendment adopted by the Senate. That change was the change was made to only for just cause. So House version they may be removed for cause. Senate version they can only remove for just cause.” When a committee member asked whether there is a legal difference, Jillian said she had discussed the question with Legislative Counsel and that, “I will say informally my reading of it and her sort of description was that there was not an explicit difference. Just cause has perhaps more case law decisions that have interpreted it but the actual difference is likely not substantive between those 2.”

Committee members raised the Senate provision that changes the executive director selection process. Under the House language, the governor selects the executive director “in consultation with the commission” (as described in the House bill). The Senate adopted an alternative: the governor submits three names to the commission and the commission selects one; if the commission fails to select an executive director, “then the Governor, within 60 days, then the Governor may select the Executive Director from those 3 names,” Jillian said. Chair Pratt clarified the limitation: the commission “do not have the authority to go outside of the names that the governor submits to them.”

Members debated the policy trade-offs between governor authority and commission independence. Representative Evans expressed concern about limiting commission control and said she had observed advisory boards rejecting candidates and stalling management in other agencies. Senator Pruzanski described the Senate language as an effort to preserve independence while providing a “fail safe belt” so that the governor’s nominees cannot be indefinitely blocked: “there is sort of a fail safe belt in there where they can't stand pat and refuse and nothing happens.” Representative Mannix and others urged clarity on the judicial-member language; Mannix said the Senate change to allow “a judge or a person who has previously served as a judge and who is not currently engaged in judicial functions including service as a senior judge” will avoid selecting senior judges still called into service.

The meeting also covered broader governance and oversight items raised in the earlier Sixth Amendment Center study. Senator Pruzanski said the bill’s registration requirement for attorneys doing public defense work was intended to provide a clearer supervisory link between the commission and private consortiums that contract for defense services. He said the Senate language requires every attorney who wants to do public defense services in the state “to be registered with the commission,” which he described as a way to provide oversight while preserving some independence for providers.

Committee staff noted a discrepancy in implementation dates: the House version sets changes to take effect on July 1, 2027, while the Senate version sets an earlier date of Jan. 1, 2026. The committee also discussed procedural rules for this conference committee’s quorum: staff confirmed a quorum requires four or more members and must include a majority of appointees from each chamber (effectively two members from each chamber for quorum).

The committee recorded several next steps: staff will seek a brief written explanation from Legislative Counsel on the practical difference between “for cause” and “just cause”; the committee will begin an amendment process to adopt the Senate phrasing on judicial functions; members agreed to schedule additional meetings to try to resolve the remaining conflicts over removal standards and the executive director selection process. Chair Pratt closed the meeting with adjournment.