Legislature(2015 - 2016)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/16/2015 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
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 | |
| HB5 | |
| SB47 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 43 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 5-CONSERVATOR OF PROTECTED PERSONS
1:41:58 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of HB 5. "An Act
relating to the persons who may be appointed conservators of a
protected person."
1:42:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 5, introduced the bill speaking to the following sponsor
statement:
Current statute outlines criteria for who may be a
conservator and under what circumstances they may
serve as such. This responsibility is limited to
certain relatives, thereby excluding other relatives.
House Bill 5 helps families act in their own best
interest by allowing an adult related by blood,
marriage or adoption to serve as conservator.
Expanding the pool of persons who could serve as a
conservator will allow greater flexibility and choice
for individuals and families needing this service.
House Bill 5 does not change the judicial process for
appointing a conservator or weaken the court's
authority to act in the "best interest" of the
protected person.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked the committee to consider this as a
small step in making it easier to secure conservatorships. It
tries to help the narrow window of people who want to have an
in-law or an adult related by marriage or adoption to be able to
be a conservator.
1:50:01 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE stated support for the bill and explained why she
is leaning toward expanding the bill further. Primarily it is to
meet the situations where a potential conservator is divorced, a
close friend or business partner. She provided two scenarios.
First, if her father and step mother were to divorce, her step
brother would be excluded from being appointed her conservator
because he would no longer be related to her by marriage. This
would be the case even if the court determined that a potential
conflict of interest was not substantial and the appointment
would be in her best interest as the protected person. The
second scenario assumes she has no biological siblings who are
female, but she has two life-long girlfriends who also have a
common business interest. That presents an inherent potential
financial conflict of interest.
She said that it is ultimately about the person who needs a
conservator and she believes the common law standard does that
with the caveat that the court can determine that a potential
conflict of interest is not substantial. She advised that she is
leaning in that direction for a committee substitute (CS).
SENATOR COSTELLO suggested the committee look at the matter from
the perspective of a person who has been adopted and needs a
conservator. The biological family is related by blood and would
qualify as a potential conservator even if the adoptee was
purposefully removed from that family unit. She asked if he'd
thought of that.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied the adoption statutes and the bill
address that through the layered list of qualifiers.
SENATOR COGHILL observed that the two factors are that it isn't
a large conflict and that it's in the best interest of the
person needing a conservator.
1:56:18 PM
SENATOR COSTELLO pointed out that the exception to the exception
comes from the current law which focuses on the traditional
family unit of a married couple and adult children. Changing the
statute to an adult related by blood expands the exception to
include people who are related by blood to a person who has been
adopted. She also questioned the use of the phrase "or adoption"
because people don't talk about their legal children and their
adopted children; they refer to their family as a unit.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER reviewed the prioritized list and pointed
out there is nothing that mandates that someone related by blood
can demand the conservatorship and disregard what the protected
person may want.
2:00:41 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE questioned the wisdom of creating a separate
standard for anybody.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked if there is a difference between a
conservator and a power of attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER deferred the question to a competent
attorney. He noted that Ms. Elliott had something to add.
2:03:17 PM
CECILE ELLIOTT, Staff, Representative Mike Hawker, provided some
background information. In 2004 the licensure of guardian and
conservator statutes were amended to encourage more people to
serve in this capacity, but the conflict of interest was not
fully addressed. Nor was it in the Uniform Probate Code.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that the statute is awkwardly
written. He surmised that the issue for the in-laws is that the
court sees a potential conflict in that relationship, perhaps
with inheritance. He asked if that or something else is at
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER agreed that the statute is cumbersome and
confirmed that the point at issue is that there is no explicit
provision to allow an in-law to be appointed a conservator. He
advised that he had the exception drafted to minimize the
changes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned the potentially broad
ramifications of making this change.
2:09:21 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE stated her intent to hold the bill so members
could think about potential conservators that fall outside the
model. For example, someone who was her step brother for 23
years before her parents divorced wouldn't qualify because he
would no longer be related to her by marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER suggested the chair asked the court how it
would view the various scenarios.
SENATOR COSTELLO expressed interest in knowing what other states
have done and stated support for flexibility in the law to
facilitate the selection of the right conservator.
CHAIR MCGUIRE commented on the changing definition of family
over time.
2:13:40 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE joined the committee.
CHAIR MCGUIRE thanked the sponsor for bringing the issue
forward. She asked Ms. Meade to comment on two scenarios: a step
brother no longer related by marriage and her best friend since
age 17 as potential conservators. The assumption in both
scenarios is that there is a conflict because she is living in
their home.
2:13:53 PM
NANCY MEADE, General Counsel, Administrative Staff, Alaska Court
System, said her understanding of the statute is that there
would be a conflict of interest under AS 13.26.210(b).
Subsection (c) provides an exception to that conflict but the
list of potential conservators does not include a step brother
no longer related by marriage or a best friend.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many times per year the court
appoints a conservator.
MS. MEADE replied it's not insubstantial and the numbers are
growing as the population ages. She offered to follow up with
the exact number and highlighted that conservators,
guardianships, and probate as a whole is the fastest growing
case type.
SENATOR COSTELLO asked how often a conservator is appointed
according to law, but is someone different than the protected
person requested or had in mind.
MS. MEADE said she didn't believe it happens very often, but
that is not a reason to maintain the statute.
2:17:01 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed interest in getting the numbers
on how many cases come up, how many times the conservator is
rejected, and the grounds for the rejection to get a sense of
the magnitude of the problem.
MS. MEADE agreed to get the information.
2:17:50 PM
MARIE DARLIN, representing AARP of Alaska, advised that the
packets contain letters of support for HB 5 from AARP and the
Alaska Commission on Aging.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if AARP would support a committee substitute
to entirely eliminate the qualifiers. It would simply say that
if there was a conflict, the court would consider the protected
person's preference to be their conservator.
MS. DARLIN said she believes so and she would provide a letter.
2:19:57 PM
DARIN COLBRY, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of HB 5. He advised that he is Representative
Hawker's constituent who brought the issue forward. His dad is
his conservator and his wife wanted her father-in-law to be her
conservator as well, but the court said it was a conflict of
interest based on the living situation. He elaborated on the
difficulties that decision has caused.
2:23:04 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE found no further testifiers and closed public
testimony. She held HB 5 in committee awaiting a committee
substitute (CS).
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1 SB47 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 2 SB47 Version A.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 3 SB47 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 4 SB47 Supporting Research Alaska Exemptions Act.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 5 SB47 Supporting Research Insurance Fraud.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 1 SB43 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| 2 SB43 Version H.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| 3 SB43 Summary of Changes Version W to H.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| 4 SB43 Letter of Support Fire Chiefs Assoc.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| 4.1 SB43 Letter of Support FNSB.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| 4.2 SB43 Letter of Support Interior Fire Chiefs.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
SB 43 |
| 1 HB5 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| 2 HB5 Version W.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| 3 HB5 Letter of Support ACOA.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 5 |
| 4 HB5 Letter of Support AARP.pdf |
SJUD 3/16/2015 1:30:00 PM |
HB 5 |