Opinion ID: 2334960
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The plain language, legislative history, and legislative intent of AS 09.50.253(c) are silent on the subject of judicial review.

Text: When interpreting a statute, we look first at the statute's language, legislative history, and legislative purpose. [9] Here, we conclude that all three are silent on the judicial review of affirmative certifications. Alaska Statute 09.50.253(c) provides, in relevant part: Upon certification by the attorney general that the state employee was acting within the scope of the employee's office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon the claim in a state court is considered an action or proceeding against the state under the provisions of this title, and the state is substituted as the party defendant. The State, arguing against review, claims that the plain meaning of the word is, in the verbs is considered and is substituted, indicates that the substitution is automatic and unreviewable. We disagree. The plain language does establish that the substitution occurs immediately once a defendant has been certified. However, the language says nothing about the reviewability of the certification. The legislative history of AS 09.50.253 is similarly silent. The statute originated in the Alaska Senate as S.B. 338 during Alaska's 23rd legislature. At a Senate Committee meeting conducted in 2004, Assistant Attorney General Gail Voigtlander testified that the bill would benefit both employees and the public. By removing employees from the lawsuit as quickly as possible, S.B. 338 would minimize the disruption to their lives that would result from being part of protracted litigation, and protect their reputations by precluding the need to disclose their involvement in a lawsuit. In addition, because employees would no longer be involved in and distracted by the lawsuit, they would serve the public more effectively than they would without a substitution. Overall, the bill was designed to increase efficient use of the State's resources, and of employees' and attorneys' time. [10] The State interprets the Senate committee proceedings as dismissing the possibility of judicial review. In the State's view, the bill's purpose was to substitute the State for state employees to the extent possible. Allowing judicial review would strip the employee of the immunity and relief from litigation that the legislature sought to provide. The superior court agreed, holding that it is clear that the statute was to preclude some claims against the State, and to shield the [Attorney General]'s decision to certify from judicial review. We disagree that the Senate minutes prove legislative intent to close off judicial review. Though it is clear that the legislature was trying to provide an avenue for state employees to be dismissed from litigation, the Senate minutes simply do not mention judicial review of a decision to certify. The House committee minutes from H.B. 488, the companion House bill to S.B. 388, are equally silent on whether an affirmative certification is reviewable. [11] Overall, the legislative history and legislative intent of AS 09.50.253 are inconclusive.