Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/06/2008 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB8 | |
| SB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 101 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to private professional conservators
and private and public guardians."
9:44:24 AM
DANA OWEN, STAFF TO SENATOR ELLIS AND STAFF TO THE LABOR AND
COMMERCE COMMITTEE, provided an overview commenting that the
Labor and Commerce Committee introduced this bill on behalf
of the Office of Public Advocacy. He deferred to Josh Fink,
from the Office of Public Advocacy to provide the larger
overview of the bill. Mr. Owen described the intent of the
bill to encourage more private professional guardians and
conservators and to insure these individuals are adequately
and appropriately licensed. The bill has been heard in the
Labor and Commerce Committee twice. It was returned to the
Committee to incorporate a rather large amendment. This
amendment is the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective
Proceedings Jurisdiction Act. This act of legislation aims
to standardize cases and bring order to questions of
interstate jurisdiction.
9:46:51 AM
JOSH FINK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, presented an overview of bill. The
legislature enacted HB 280 in 2004, establishing licensure
and regulatory oversight of private professional guardians
and conservators. Prior to the enactment of the bill there
was no state oversight of private guardians or conservators
in Alaska. This bill corrects some unintended consequences
of the 2004 bill. The hope of the licensure bill would be to
regulate the profession by screening more capable
individuals less likely to exploit those whose lives they
assisted. Mr. Fink believed the bill would regulate the
formally unregulated industry and hopefully encourage more
development of the industry in Alaska. Mr. Fink revealed
that the bill, as written, established some impediments,
such as requiring multiple licenses entering into this
business. He explained that to provide full guardianship,
four licenses were required. This bill eliminates the need
for multiple licenses and establishes an individual license.
Mr. Fink informed the Committee that this legislation was
drafted with input from the Office of Public Advocacy,
Occupational Licensing and the Alaska State Association for
Guardianship. This bill clarifies, in Section 2 and 4,
criminal convictions that would disqualify an individual
from obtaining a license. The legislation eliminates the
requirement that an applicant provide "proof of the ability"
to be bonded and insured. Mr. Fink pointed out that when an
appointment is made, the court can require that a bond be
posted by the private guardian or conservator on a case-by-
case determination. It also establishes that an annual
report include total fees collected from the protected
persons, total business expenses, and documents necessary to
establish the financial solvency of the licensee. The bill
also directs that an annual report be submitted to Office
Public Advocacy rather than Occupational Licensing.
9:52:08 AM
Mr. Fink continued that this legislation clarifies that
Occupational Licensing may refuse to renew a license and/or
take disciplinary action if there is a determination that
the licensee failed to meet any of the licensure
requirements listed. The legislation further clarifies that
financial institutions, regulated by the federal government
under the Alaska Statute Title 6, are exempt from the
licensing requirements. This legislation requires that
public guardians of the Office of Public Advocacy pass the
same criminal background checks that are required of private
professional guardians and possess the same national
certification. Mr. Fink mentioned that amendments added by
Labor and Commerce Committee eliminated the need for an
expert evaluation to determine whether the respondent is
incapacitated if the respondent agrees to the protective
appointment. The court must also make written findings if it
appoints someone of lower priority as a guardian or
conservator. Mr. Fink informed the committee that currently
in Statute there is a list for the order of guardianship
appointments. SB 101 asks the courts to a make written
response as to why the court chose to make an "out of the
order" appointment. This legislation would also exempt the
respondent from inspection or copying under the Public
Records Act unless the records are relevant to an
investigation or formal proceeding. Mr. Fink related that
there may be some concern involving the exploitation of a
family member obtaining private information that is not
required for them to know. Finally a new amendment in the
bill would allow OPA to collect its monthly fee from the
respondent awards funds held at trust in OPA prior to
distributing the funds at the termination of the
appointment.
9:56:14 AM
DEBORAH BEHR, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGISLATION
AND REGULATION SECTION, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
and UNIFORM LAW COMMISSIONERS OF ALASKA recommended adoption
of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceeding
Act, Section 24 to the end of the bill. This uniform act
has had experts for years developing a law that works across
state lines dealing with the difficulties of multiple
guardians residing in different states. This bill makes it
easier and less expensive for the courts to address the
transfer of guardianship of an incapacitated adult between
families residing in different states should the particular
need arise. This would require the courts to communicate
with each other and determine the best interests of the
incapacitated adult. This bill is supported by AARP, the
Department of Health and Social Services, the National
College of Probate Judges and the National Guardianship
Foundation. The bill has no fiscal impact for the State of
Alaska. Ms. Behr recommends the passage of this bill.
9:59:13 AM
Senator Thomas questioned why this was not a more simple
issue if it involved transfer of guardianship between family
members in different states.
10:00:43 AM
Ms. Behr responded that in the past, guardianship and
conservatorship laws responded to a time when families
traveled much less but in this time of higher mobility, it
must be addressed. The process can be expensive for the
family hiring lawyers from different states to deal with
different courts.
Senator Elton inquired about how the criminal history
component was performed. Mr. Fink responded that the
applicant is required to submit fingerprints in the
application process and the Division of Occupational
Licensing runs a criminal history check to confirm if there
was a criminal history within the prior ten years of the
application. Senator Elton asked who pays for the background
check. Mr. Fink responded that an application fee, paid for
by the applicant, covers the criminal background check.
Senator Elton inquired why a private professional guardian
must be licensed but an appointed public guardian or staff
person, in Section 22, p. 10-11, has a year before they must
apply for and receive certification. He inquired why there
would be different criteria for a private individual and for
someone who works for OPA. Mr. Fink responded that an
individual working for OPA will be supervised and mentored
for the year before they are certified.
10:04:10 AM
Senator Elton indicated that on page 20 it talks about the
registration of guardianship orders and protective orders
between the different courts. He asked for an explanation on
how bonding works. Senator Elton used the example that if a
guardian who is appointed in another state applies for
jurisdiction within Alaska, could the State of Alaska
require a bond of that person or would that be the privilege
of the originating court.
Ms. Behr responded that if the courts decided where the
individual should be, the other state guardianship would be
registered in the original home place of the individual and
the other court would monitor any transactions and follow
that state's law.
Senator Elton clarified that it is the originating court
that applied the standards that the guardian must follow.
Ms. Behr affirmed that this bill does not change the
guardianship standards requirements of being a guardian that
is monitored by the other state.
10:05:52 AM
Senator Dyson commented on being encouraged that this was
being patterned on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
Act. The transitory nature of the Alaskan population makes
it important that mutually respected procedures exist for
cross jurisdictional issues. He encouraged the passage of
this bill.
10:07:12 AM
PAT LUBY, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, AARP, ANCHORAGE, considered SB
8 to be excellent and needed legislation from a consumer
perspective. He maintained that the growing older population
in Alaska makes it important for the State to exercise
oversight over what will only become an expanding
guardianship issue. The AARP encouraged support of this
bill.
10:08:06 AM
SB 101 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|