Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/25/2022 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB102 | |
| SB121 | |
| HB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to court-appointed visitors and
experts; relating to the powers and duties of the
office of public advocacy; relating to the powers and
duties of the Alaska Court System; and providing for
an effective date."
9:46:56 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing of HB
155. It was the intent of the committee to hear the
introduction of the bill, the sectional analysis, and any
invited and public testimony.
Co-Chair Stedman asked that all presenters and testifiers
who came before the committee were attired in adherence
with the formal dress code. He stated there were some
exceptions, such as an individual who had a broken arm.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that there were spare ties available
for those in need.
9:48:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, SPONSOR, relayed that HB 155
attempted to fix a flaw in the state that was negatively
impacting the Alaska Court System's (ACS) visitor program.
He explained that the program was created to act as an
investigative arm of the court in certain protective
probate proceedings such as guardianships and
conservatorships. Since 1984, the court visitor program has
been administered by the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA).
Unfortunately, there was no legislative history that
clarified why a judicial branch program was placed under
the direction of an executive branch office. The bill was
developed in collaboration with OPA and the court system
and both entities had endorsed the bill. He reported that
state law gave OPA the responsibility to provide court
visitors in guardianship proceedings and involuntary
medication proceedings. The executive branch paid for the
court visitors because it was the branch under which OPA
fell. The court system independently contracted with and
directly paid for court visitors in conservatorship
proceedings. He explained that OPA was only responsible for
providing court visitors in guardianship proceedings. The
current structure of the program was both inefficient and
confusing. The bill would solve the inefficiency by moving
the court visitor program from OPA to the court system.
Representative Tuck explained that court visitors were
neutral parties with specialized training who conducted
independent investigations into whether guardianships or
conservatorships were necessary. Guardianships were enacted
for individuals who were unable to care for their own
wellbeing due to incapacity or disability, while
conservatorships were used to manage the financial and
personal affairs of an impaired person or minor. The court
visitors also participated in investigations to determine
whether a potentially impaired individual was able to give
their informed consent.
9:51:57 AM
Senator von Imhof asked if the committee would consider the
fiscal note [by the Alaska Judiciary System with OMB
component 768 and control code EGgOL] during the current
meeting.
Co-Chair Bishop responded that he intended to hear the bill
and set it aside, but she was welcome to address the fiscal
note.
Senator von Imhof asked why moving the program would cost
$960,000 according to the fiscal note. She wondered why a
new full-time position was proposed as well.
Representative Tuck responded that the proposed new
employee would be responsible for the training and
oversight of court visitors. He noted that the program had
been underfunded for a while and the move presented an
opportunity to bring it back up to a more appropriate
funding level. He suggested that Mr. Doug Wooliver from the
court system address the question as well.
9:53:13 AM
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, echoed the sponsor's assertion that the bill was
developed in collaboration with OPA. The reason there was a
difference in the fiscal note was because OPA had never
provided training for court visitors in the past and the
courts would like to improve the program. The employee
would provide oversight, training, and scheduling for the
court visitors. He thought the tasks should have been
happening already and hoped the program would improve when
moved to the court system.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that around $100,000 of the cost of
the shift was due to the repositioning of the duties to the
courts. He asked if the courts could function without the
addition of the $100,000 spread.
Mr. Wooliver responded that the courts could function
without the funds, but the program would retain all of the
deficiencies that it currently had. It was important to
improve the program if the court system were to take it
over, which would require additional funds.
Senator Olson shared the same concern as Senator von Imhof.
He asked if the improvements to the program would be worth
the $960,000 in the fiscal note.
Mr. Wooliver noted that most of the cost simply reflected a
transfer of funds from OPA to the court system. The only
increase was the roughly $100,000 for the new position.
Senator Olson noted that the amount would be recurring
every year.
Mr. Wooliver responded in the affirmative, however the
funds would originate from OPA's budget. He explained that
OPA's budget would show a decrement due to the transfer of
funds.
9:56:48 AM
MICHAEL MASON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, read from the
sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1 Repeals and reenacts AS 13.26.226 (d) to
read: The Alaska Court System shall provide visitors
and experts in guardianship proceedings under AS
13.26.291. The Alaska Court System may contract for
services of court-appointed visitors and experts.
Section 2 Amends AS 13.26.291 (a) to stipulate that
the Alaska Court System shall bear the costs of the
visitors and experts appointed under AS 13.26.226 (c).
Section 3 Amends AS 44.21.410 (a) to remove
paragraph 2 and renumber the remaining paragraph.
Section 4 Amends AS.21.420 (c) to remove language
allowing the Commissioner of Administration to
contract for services for court visitors and experts
to perform the duties set out in AS 44.21.410.
Section 5 Amends AS 44.21.440 (b) to remove a
reference to court visitors from language prohibiting
the Office of Public Advocacy from using improper
pressure to influence the professional judgment of a
person paid by the office.
Section 6 Amends AS.30.839 (d) to remove language
allowing the court to direct the Office of Public
Advocacy to provide a court visitor to investigate
whether a patient can give or withhold informed
consent in psychotropic medication proceedings during
involuntary commitments.
Section 7 Amends 47.30.839 to add a new subsection
to read: (j) The Alaska
Court System shall provide visitors in proceedings
under this section. The Alaska Court System may
contract for services of court-appointed visitors.
Section 8 Amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska to add transition language stipulating that the
act applies to guardianship proceedings under AS
13.26.291 and proceedings under AS.30.839 commenced on
or after the effective date of the act. The section
further amends the uncodified law of the State of
Alaska to ensure that the Office of Public Advocacy
shall provide for the services of visitors in
proceedings under AS 47.30.839 before the effective
date of the act.
Section 9 Provides an effective date of July 1,
2022.
9:59:26 AM
Senator Wilson wondered if it would be better for the new
employee to belong to an entity other than the court system
as the employee would be asking the court to make decisions
on an individual's wellbeing.
Representative Tuck relayed that the position would be
contracted out and there was already a neutral third party
involved in the process. The bill would make the process
more efficient and less confusing by placing it under the
proper branch. He relayed that the courts were the parties
that made the decisions in the end. It was unclear why the
program had been designated to OPA and it had been
identified as a problem for a long time.
Senator Wilson was concerned that the court would be paying
someone to agree or disagree with the court's judgements.
He thought a separation seemed wise.
Representative Tuck responded that the decisions were not
made after the investigation was complete. He invited his
staff to comment.
Mr. Mason suggested that Mr. James Stinson from OPA comment
on Senator Wilson's concern.
10:01:36 AM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY,
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference),
responded that currently, the court system directly
appointed and paid for court visitors in conservatorship
cases. He explained that OPA paid for the same services
with the same contractors in guardianship cases. He thought
that the public had the misconception that OPA was running
a monopoly on the proceedings and had undue influence
because OPA also supplied the attorneys for the cases. The
reality was that all court visitors, regardless of case
type, were under the judicial rules of conduct per case
law. The court visitors reported to the judiciary branch
and acted as an investigative arm of the court. He relayed
that OPA's only real responsibility was to provide payment
to the court visitors if the case at hand was a
guardianship case.
10:03:22 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED publics testimony.
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the agenda for the afternoon.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB102-DOA-DRM SFIN 2022 draft changes per Sen FIN 04182022.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 102 |
| HB 155 Testimony Office of Public Advocacy 4.3.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 5/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Sponsor Statement 3.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Explanation of Changes Version B to Version 1 02.16.2022.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Version I Sectional Analysis 02.15.2022.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Additional Document - Alaska Court System Response to HJUD Questions on April 5_2021 4.7.2021.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 155 |
| SB 121 support Kiehl.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Suppot Testimony - Jenn Currie.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 RCRA Response to SFIN - 04.28.22.pdf |
SFIN 4/25/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |