Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/07/2021 01:00 PM House 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 | |
| Commission on Judicial Conduct | |
| HB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 155-COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
1:45:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
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."
1:46:25 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded members that at a prior hearing on HB 155,
a question had been asked of Doug Wooliver as to how many cases
were filed each year under [AS 47.30.839], which pertains to
court ordered administration of medication. He reported that
last year there were a total of 63 cases: 50 in Anchorage; 5 in
Fairbanks; 5 in Juneau; and 3 in Palmer. He said he looked at
the conservatorship-related statute - conservatorship being
managed by the court system - and listed were a number of items
that need to be put in a report. He observed there is no
similar recording requirements that are in the guardianship
provision. He questioned if there is a reason for that.
1:48:10 PM
JAMES STINSON, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Department
of Administration, answered that since 1984, "it has essentially
not been needed to be stated." He explained that court visitors
are doing the same thing, whether it's a conservatorship case or
a guardianship case; they are giving an independent
investigative report to the court. He continued:
At the point the court takes administration of this
program over, I imagine they could set their own
administrative requirements or ... give guidance into
what they need in a report, because ultimately a judge
is having to make a finding on whether or not a
certain threshold is met for somebody to get a
conservatorship or to get a guardianship in either
case, so there has to be sufficient evidence of that,
and the court visitor ... report is sort of one of
those important pieces of evidence where they can
collect ... medical evidence and other things that can
give a court the ability to make that decision.
MR. STINSON concluded that he does not think it is necessary for
the guardianship statute to mirror the conservatorship statute.
He added, "I imagine it'll continue to be the same."
1:49:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited final comments from committee members.
1:49:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said HB 155 "sounds like a smart move"
and she has no problem supporting it.
1:49:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN mentioned the two fiscal notes and
questioned why, if one department gains a service the other one
loses, the cost would not remain consistent. He observed the
amount would increase.
1:51:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted for the record that Representative Snyder
would be voting via Teams.
1:51:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 155 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 155 was reported out of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.