Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/05/2021 09:00 AM House 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 | |
| HB155 | |
| HB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 110 | 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."
9:03:02 AM
MIKE MASON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, introduced
himself. He read the prepared statement:
"Good morning. I'm Mike Mason, staff to Representative
Chris Tuck. He apologizes for not being here this
morning.
The development of House Bill 155 is the result of a
meeting Rep. Tuck had scheduled with James Stinson,
the Executive Director of the Office of Public
Advocacy in early March of this year. Unfortunately,
Rep. Tuck got called away at the last minute and I
ended up taking the meeting. After a short
conversation I was convinced to try and help, and Rep.
Tuck agreed. We had the bill drafted and introduced.
Very simply, House Bill 155 transfers the Alaska Court
Visitor Program from the Office of Public Advocacy to
the Alaska Court System. This transfer would move a
program from the executive branch of government to the
judicial branch of government. However, it takes this
branch of government to make it happen.
Rep. Tuck decided to sponsor House Bill 155 after
learning two facts. There is no legislative history
explaining why the Court Visitor Program was placed
under the direction of the Office of Public Advocacy
(OPA - part of the executive branch). The Alaska Court
System and the Office of Public Advocacy support the
transfer of the program. (Both sides will testify to
that fact).
Currently, the Office of Public Advocacy is required
by law to provide court visitor services. A court
visitor is a neutral person with specialized training
or experience. (Law, medical care, mental healthcare,
pastoral care, social work) The individuals chosen to
serve as court visitors conduct independent
investigations and make recommendations to the court
system about guardianships or conservatorships.
Guardianships are used to protect individuals who
cannot care for their well-being due to incapacity or
disability. Conservatorships are used to manage an
incapacitated person or minor's financial and personal
affairs. Court visitors also participate in
psychotropic medication proceedings during involuntary
commitments to investigate whether the patient can
give or withhold informed consent.
The Court Visitor Program was created in 1984, and in
recent years it has become apparent that the program
should be under the direction of the Alaska Court
System. As its name implies, the Office of Public
Advocacy does advocacy. Court visitors do not function
in an advocacy position.
As you will hear in just a moment from the
representatives of the Office of Public Advocacy and
the Court System? there is a fundamental inefficiency
within the Court Visitor Program. As currently
written, state law gives the Office of Public Advocacy
the responsibility of providing court visitors in
guardianship and involuntary medication proceedings.
(OPA pays the bills). The Alaska Court System
contracts and pays for the court visitors that serve
in conservatorship proceedings. (Court system pays the
bills)
House Bill 155 solves this inefficiency by
transferring the entire Alaska Court Visitor Program
to the Alaska Court System.
As you will hear in just a moment, House Bill 155 is a
collaborative effort between the executive branch and
the judicial branch, asking the legislative branch to
fix a flaw in state law that hampers a good program's
effectiveness. Invited testimony includes James
Stinson, the Director of the Office of Public
Advocacy, and Doug Wooliver, the Deputy Administrative
Director for the Alaska Court System.
The Office of Public Advocacy's budget for the Court
Visitor Program is $854,400. (Included in the
Governor's FY 22 budget request). The fiscal note from
the Court System notes that cost plus 1 additional
staff person to oversee the training, supervision, and
scheduling of court visitors. ($960,600 Included in
the Court System's FY 22 budget request). If the bill
passes, the funding would be reflected in the fiscal
note section of the budget bill, HB 69."
Mr. Mason was available for questions.
9:07:01 AM
Representative Johnson asked if someone online would be
available to review the fiscal note. Mr. Mason responded
that the Alaska Court System and the Office of Public
Advocacy could provide details of the fiscal note.
Representative Johnson asked if the bill was a transfer
from one department to another with no additional costs.
Mr. Mason stated that everyone worked together on the bill
and the parties could explain what was reflected in the
fiscal note. The court system would take over the current
costs. He noted there was an additional position reflected
in the note. The Office of Public Advocacy's budget for the
Court Visitor Program was $854,400 which was included in
the governor's FY 22 budget request. The fiscal note from
the Alaska Court System reflected that cost plus the cost
of one additional staff person who would oversee the
training, supervision, and the scheduling of court
visitors. The amount was $960,600 and was included in the
Alaska Court System's FY 22 budget request. If the bill
passed, the funding would be reflected in the fiscal note
section of the budget bill. Mr. Stinson and Mr. Wooliver
could provide additional details. Representative Johnson
thought she might have additional questions at a later
time.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated the committee would be hearing
invited testimony.
9:09:05 AM
AT EASE
9:09:34 AM
RECONVENED
DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT
SYSTEM, agreed that the change had been overdue. The Alaska
Court System had had several meetings over the years with
OPA about transferring the Court Visitors Program from OPA
to the Alaska Court System. The transfer made sense. He
explained that when OPA was created, it was responsible for
things related to guardianships and the Court Visitors
Program was lumped into the office. However, the Court
Visitors Program was really a court function. Court
visitors served as experts for the court. They reported to
the court and were neutral evaluators investigating cases
to ensure that the request for guardianships or
conservatorships were appropriate.
Mr. Wooliver continued that both entities had wanted to
make the change for several years, but it fell off of the
radar. Commissioner Dave Donley contacted him to try to get
legislation passed in the current session. It had
originally showed up as a budget item. There was a deficit
in OPA's budget and an increment in the Alaska Court System
Budget. However, it took legislation to make such a change
which was reflected in the fiscal note. The request had
been removed in the budget and into the present fiscal
note. Should the bill pass, the transfer would take place.
If not, he would address the bill again in the following
year.
Mr. Wooliver informed the committee that the court system
normally did not take positions on bills. However, HB 155
was an exception because it had been a joint effort between
the Alaska Court System and OPA. He addressed the fiscal
note. The difference in the note was that the Alaska Court
System would add a staff person that would do the training,
scheduling, and hiring, of the court visitors. If the bill
did not pass, OPA indicated it would hire a person which
was reflected in the office's budget request.
Co-Chair Merrick noted Representative Wool had joined the
meeting.
Representative Josephson asked if Mr. Wooliver would need
space in the court house to house the employees. Mr.
Wooliver replied that the court visitors were contractors
who did not need to be housed.
Representative Johnson asked where the new employee would
be housed. Mr. Wooliver replied that the position would
likely be housed in the Anchorage Court House.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Wooliver for being in the
meeting. Mr. Wooliver thanked the committee for hearing the
bill.
9:14:26 AM
JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY (via
teleconference), echoed Mr. Wooliver's comments. When he
became director of OPA about 3 years prior, the program
struck him as an oddity. He spoke with people who had
institutional knowledge and had been around OPA for several
years. They shared the same opinion. There seemed to be a
consensus and a legislative audit that agreed that it was a
strange program to house in the executive branch under the
Department of Administration (DOA). The only inference to
OPA had to do with guardianships. Therefore, it was placed
with OPA rather than the court system. He noted the court
system did conservatorships which was the reason it never
made much sense for an arm of the court system to be house
in OPA. It did not matter how effectively OPA tried to
communicate with an arm of the court system, ultimately,
the court system would be able to communicate with its own
arm more efficiently.
Mr. Stinson conveyed that OPA provided respondent counsel
in proceedings often arguing against a court visitor's
opinion. Conservatorship was a serious restriction to a
person's financial liberty, and guardianship was the
highest form of a person's liberty restriction. In such
cases, a person had the right to an attorney. The Office of
Public Advocacy provided that attorney which created
additional tension. He was not sure if it created an actual
conflict but certainly the perception of a conflict. The
Alaska statutes outlined that OPA could not exercise undue
influence over court visitors. The boundaries were clear in
statute. However, they were murkier around OPA's oversight
of court visitors. Several issues had allowed the program
to stumble along without much meaningful oversight or
training.
Mr. Stinson suggested that by placing the program within
the court system judges and court visitors could be trained
together. The court system could cater the program to
regions that had different challenges outside of urban
areas. He thought the legislation was a win for all parties
and would result in better outcomes. He believed there
would be a more efficient administration of the program as
a court function saving the state money.
Co-Chair Merrick commented that the committee loved saving
money. She directed Mr. Stinson to review the fiscal note.
9:18:07 AM
Mr. Stinson indicated the Office of Public Advocacy would
be transferring contract dollars to the Alaska Court
System, as there were no dedicated PCNs. The work was
performed by independent contractors rather than State of
Alaska employees. The program had grown substantially
primarily due to an aging population. He conveyed when
someone was under guardianship there was a 3-year review in
which a court visitor provided an update to the court
system as to whether the person still needed guardianship.
There was an important liberty interest at stake. It
ultimately stacked costs because guardianships had the
potential to last a long time. A person could require
guardianship or conservatorship for their natural life. The
court system wanted to have a sufficient amount of money to
fund paying court visitors, but they also needed some sort
of administrative oversight position to make the program
function well and to ensure training. He reported that OPA
did not have such a position. He thought it was reasonable
for the Court System to request an added position. If OPA
were to continue administrating the program, it would want
to add a position to provide the best possible service
despite the challenges.
Representative Johnson asked Mr. Stinson to identify some
of the savings. Mr. Stinson responded that savings would be
attained through increasing efficiencies. He thought the
program would grow, as it was a a mandated service. He
suggested that the Alaska Court System would be a better
steward of funding because they would be able to set
standards of practice, directly supervise its own arm, get
rid of problem contractors, help improve problem
contractors, set minimum standards, and set reporting
requirements. It was a direct court function. He thought
the result would be less waste and more efficiency.
Representative Johnson disagreed. She thought it might work
better within the court system and be a better program
overall. She wanted to be clear that if the legislature was
increasing costs, the program should improve.
9:22:30 AM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony.
9:22:40 AM
Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated amendments were due in the
current day by 6:00 p.m.
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 110 Supporting Documents 4.14.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Sectional Summary 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Summary of Changes - 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| CSHB 110 Sponsor Statement 4.14.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Opposition - Alex McDonald, 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Public Testimony by 050421.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Opposition - Shaun D'Sylva, 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 110 Support Received as of 4.10.21.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 110 |
| HB 155 Sectional Analysis 3.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 5/5/2021 9:00:00 AM |
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 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 |