Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Indigent Defense Stipends topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears $3 million request to fund public defender stipends tied to Davis v. State compliance
Summary
The Department of Indigent Defense Services sought a $3 million one‑time allotment to provide stipends and other costs tied to compliance with the Davis v. State consent judgment. Lawmakers probed how stipends would be structured and raised concerns about pay‑bill salary caps and appropriate appropriation mechanisms.
The Assembly Ways and Means Committee took testimony on Assembly Bill 580, which would appropriate $3 million to the Department of Indigent Defense Services to underwrite stipends for public defenders and other costs related to compliance with the Davis v. State consent judgment.
Peter Handy, executive director of the Department of Indigent Defense Services, said the funding would give the department immediate access “to comply with the judgment” and to cover stipends and unforeseen costs identified by the court monitor. He outlined two possible stipend delivery models: direct stipends to state public defender employees or a reimbursement/grant model for counties that pay stipends or retention bonuses to their public defender staff.
Handy said the department intends the stipends to address pay parity concerns between state public defenders and local prosecutors, and to improve recruitment and retention. “It brings parity … the state public defender is paid on the same scale as a chief deputy attorney general,” Handy said, adding that stipends were requested to help “attract and retain people to work in the state public defender's office.”
Committee members pressed on structure and precedent. A member noted the state pay bill sets maximum salaries for state public defenders and warned that the proposed stipends, if effectively added to base salary, could exceed the statutory caps. The committee’s fiscal leader said a general‑fund one‑time appropriation that effectively increases employee compensation raises legal and budgetary questions under the pay bill; he recommended using the existing work‑program and interim finance committee (IFC) reimbursement process for extraordinary costs.
Handy said similar payments have been made previously to cover weekend and holiday duty stipends, but that legislative authorization would be required to pay stipends in the classified unclassified positions at this scale. He said the department had previously proposed stipends but lacked statutory authority without legislative action.
No formal action was taken at the hearing. The committee chair and members indicated they would consider whether to process the request as a one‑time general‑fund appropriation or to continue the established reimbursement/work‑program process through IFC.
