Attorney general's office outlines budget priorities including equity pay, crime-lab staff and litigation pool

The Attorney General’s Office presented a detailed budget request to the Senate Appropriations Government Operations Division, asking lawmakers to fund equity pay increases, fill key forensic and attorney vacancies and cover rising technology and maintenance costs.

Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness opened the presentation and described staffing and program outcomes the office attributes to prior appropriations. “My name is Claire Ness. I’m the Chief Deputy Attorney General,” Ness said, and she highlighted results from FTEs the legislature approved in the last session: expanded Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) coverage on tribal lands, new cybercrime capacity and restored crime‑lab units for latent print and firearms work.

The office listed several optional requests that it said were not included in the House budget package. Major items included an attorney‑equity package ($291,777), additional crime‑lab personnel (an evidence technician and a full‑time quality assurance manager), a proposed attorney for the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, replacement and maintenance funding for e‑prosecutor and jail systems, and upgrades to the victim notification and other IT systems. Ness provided a cost‑benefit example for in‑house attorneys, saying the office’s analysis shows one attorney FTE can save “anywhere from over $2,000,000 per attorney to over $9,000,000 per attorney FTE” compared with contracting outside counsel.

Ness also described the office’s litigation pool and its recent usage. The office said the legislature appropriated a $5,000,000 litigation pool last session and the AG’s office has expended about $4,600,000 to date; it sought—and the House later included—additional contingency authority. Ness told senators the pool has funded defense of several high‑cost federal cases and other litigation brought against state statutes.

BCI director Lonnie Gurbowska (introduced in testimony) and other division chiefs joined the presentation and answered committee questions about hiring and field operations. Committee members pressed the office on long‑open positions in criminal divisions and the forensic lab; Ness and division directors said recruiting remains difficult because starting salaries for many AG positions lag comparable county and municipal prosecutor pay and because some forensic and firearms examiner roles require out‑of‑state recruitment.

Ness and BCI staff described tribal partnerships and field coverage: the office said three BCI tribal field agents were funded in the previous session and have been assigned to the Spirit Lake, Turtle Mountain and Mandan/Three Affiliated tribes. Director Gurbowska said one agent on a reservation is sometimes the only state agent available for active drug investigations and that proactive work often requires pulling agents from other locations to provide operational backup.

On technology and lab maintenance, Ness told the committee the office needs funds to replace vendor‑unsupported systems and to preserve maintenance agreements on high‑value forensic equipment; without those agreements, she said, a broken instrument can take a lab offline and create backlog and trial‑schedule problems. She also said the victim notification system—which the office maintains under state statute and which notifies victims about custody and case status changes—needs replacement because the current vendor arrangement has produced reliability problems.

The presentation included requests for additional investigative and administrative support: a criminal investigator for the State and Local Intelligence Center, administrative support for tribal field agents and cybercrime units, radios to meet state radio standards, discovery and redaction software for litigation, and modest vehicle replacement and licensing support. Ness noted some requests were included by the House but others were not.

The session included several follow‑up requests from committee members for detailed breakout information—how much litigation spending went to outside counsel versus in‑house attorneys, and a line‑by‑line list of expensive cases—which office staff agreed to provide. No formal vote occurred during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and asked for follow‑up documentation.

The Attorney General’s Office also hosted outside witnesses during the hearing (see separate articles) and closed by asking the committee to consider restoring a 3% across‑the‑board cut from the prior executive budget and to support the office’s optional requests that the House did not include.

The committee left the record open for additional questions and follow‑up materials the office agreed to provide.