State prosecutors ask lawmakers for $3.2 million and new staff to address backlog and public‑records work

Tanya Schumann, of the Department of State and Attorney's Affairs, and Annie Noonan, the department's director of labor relations and operations, told a legislative committee on Friday that the office is asking for $3.2 million in new funding and a package of positions for fiscal 2026 to address a persistent backlog and support case processing across the state.

The request covers six paralegals, six administrative support staff, a docket manager, a part‑time fiscal support position, a full‑time field support staffer, a public‑records/public‑conviction (PCR) attorney and training staff. "All of the positions totaled here, we would need $3,200,000," Noonan said during the presentation.

The department said the $3.2 million figure does not include four deputy state's attorneys that the office wants converted from limited‑service to permanent status; those four positions are expected to be funded from existing limited‑service allocations if conversions are approved. Tanya Schumann told the committee she planned to share the hearing recording with frontline staff to show the committee "took the time today to hear from our front line."

Why it matters: department leaders told the committee their offices are stretched thin. The department reported roughly 75 employees across 29 offices, two IT staff and a single fiscal person who currently handles accounts payable and receivable for the entire office. One witness testified that victim advocates are carrying roughly "600 cases," a workload the department described as overwhelming and a priority for additional staffing.

Officials detailed other drivers of the request: federal grant reporting tied to pandemic ARPA funds that previously paid for temporary staffing; separate grants that require distinct reporting (identified in testimony as funding for two traffic prosecutors and two domestic violence prosecutors under a STOP grant); and the time‑consuming nature of expungement work compared with sealing. Schumann and Noonan said the department used roughly $3.3 million in ARPA funds to hire limited‑service staff after 2022, and that funding has since expired.

Committee members asked whether the department had prioritized the 32 positions if lawmakers cannot approve them all. Noonan and Schumann said victim advocates and administrative staff that support case processing were high priorities; paralegals and a docket manager were described as cost‑effective ways to reduce attorney workload, for example by reviewing hours of media files and identifying older cases appropriate for dismissal or other resolution. One presenter described dismissing about 50 eligible misdemeanor cases in a single county, saying the task took several hours to identify and file dismissals because the work is manually intensive.

The department also requested a dedicated attorney for post‑conviction relief (PCR) cases, saying it has 81 active PCR matters that often involve lengthy records, witnesses who may be deceased and civil‑division litigation outside prosecutors' usual courtrooms. "Our department needs a full time person thinking about these cases," one presenter said, noting defender offices have dedicated staff for similar work.

On expungement and sealing, witnesses told the committee that sealing orders are administratively easier for prosecutors to identify and manage than full expungements, which leave no index the office can track. That distinction factored into the department's request for staffing that would help locate records and ensure compliance with court orders.

Several committee members suggested shifting some functions to other state agencies, the attorney general's office or pursuing pre‑charge deflection strategies to reduce filings. Schumann acknowledged departmental leaders had discussed redistributing work and said the department has asked other agencies to identify capacity where appropriate. The testimony also noted the department's relationship with local courthouses to pursue administrative solutions — for example, developing tools with court operations managers so certain dismissals can be processed more efficiently.

No formal votes or budget decisions were taken at the hearing. Committee members said they had enough information to continue reviewing the request and urged additional follow‑up on prioritization, potential interagency transfers of work and how a docket manager's data products would be used by elected state's attorneys across counties.

Ending: The committee did not adopt any measure at the session; lawmakers signaled they will weigh the staffing package as part of broader budget discussions and requested follow‑up information on prioritization and implementation details.