Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/23/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:13 p.m. on March 23, 1994. A quorum was present. Chairman Brian Porter announced that the committee would begin with HB 376. TAPE 94-49, SIDE A Number 037 HB 376 - ASSIST & PROTECT VULNERABLE ADULTS CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I would ask that the committee take the CS on HB 376 in hand. This represents, basically, the committee substitute that incorporated the items we had questions on last meeting, and one other item which I will explain. Section one is new between last meeting and the development of this CS. This was another section that was found in the statutes that deals with this issue where we wanted to change the `elder abuse' to `vulnerable adult,' which, of course, this bill incorporates. On page six, which I think is what we do have, on line 18, we have added verbiage so that the entire sentence says, beginning on the last of 17, `The Department or its designee shall conduct a face to face interview with the vulnerable adult, who is the subject of the report.' We wanted to make sure, just for clarification, that that's the person of whom we were speaking. I'll not discuss page seven, because you don't have it yet [Ed. Note: it was distributed shortly thereafter.]. On page nine, at the top, line one, we have added `life threatening' and the word `temporary,' and in line two, the word `temporarily.' This is the section that deals with the ability of the department to determine that an individual is within an emergency situation and takes steps without permission, without consent, to protect that vulnerable adult. Obviously, this is one of the sections of the bill that is of the consideration of this committee and we thought that it would be appropriate to make sure that was done in only very serious temporary situations where a department could, in effect, control someone's life without otherwise due process or permission." REP. JOE GREEN: "Did you want to discuss these now or wait?" CHAIRMAN PORTER: "We can discuss them now if you like." Number 110 REP. GREEN: "Just a point of clarification: By adding `life threatening,' does that modify the temporary nature to the point that the department will probably minimize that time in order to stay in context with this life-threatening thing?" Number 115 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "That would be my impression, yes. On line 11 of page seven, we have added `procedural status' as opposed to just `status'. The entire thing, then...`Upon request of person who made a report to the department under this statute number regarding a vulnerable adult shall be notified, shall be notified of the procedural status of the investigation conducted under (a) of this section regarding that vulnerable adult.' We wanted to make sure that this was not interpreted to mean that otherwise confidential information would be relayed to the person who made the report, but recognizing it's appropriate for that person to know the status of that report." Number 147 REP. CLIFF DAVIDSON: "So, in effect, the new word `procedural' just means that the person who made the report shall be notified of where in the procedure the status of that vulnerable adult is. Is that correct?" Chairman Porter replied in the affirmative. REP. DAVIDSON asked further: "The department - are they in full support of all these amendments?" CHAIRMAN PORTER: "It's my understanding that they are. Connie is nodding in the affirmative." Number 170 REP. PETE KOTT: "Just for clarification here. If there is some type of action that would require the appointment of counsel on any matter that would be brought before the court, who would that be? I don't see a real provision there. If I understand the system correctly, the Office of Public Advocacy would be the one that would be representing as counsel in these matters. And if that's the case, I don't see a fiscal note." Number 185 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "The appointment of counsel for a vulnerable adult initially would be determined by the financial status of that individual. If that person has, as we've listed in the bill, and I can't remember exactly which section, but we've listed that the department can seek assistance and guidance for these kinds of determinations, from relatives and spouses or even close associates. Those people would be in a position to know whether or not there are funds with which to hire their own attorney, which obviously is the law, or have to appoint a guardian (indiscernible.) If a guardian (indiscernible) is appointed, there would be a fiscal impact, but I don't think that this bill would create an additional impact; it's just defining the process for doing that which has already been occurring." Number 214 REP. KOTT: "My only question was, at least if I understand the system correctly, that if you do have appointed counsel representing these types of cases - either commitment or guardian cases - it would come from the Office of Public Advocacy. So I was just suggesting that perhaps there should be some kind of fiscal impact. I think the office also falls within the Department of Administration, if I'm correctly stating that, and that might bring about some form of conflict." CHAIRMAN PORTER invited DANIELLA LOPER, COMMITTEE COUNSEL, HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, to comment. Number 241 MS. LOPER said and reiterated several times that the issue raised by Rep. Kott did not relate to the bill. She said only one particular section discussed petitioning the court for certain protective services by the agency. Number 250 REP. KOTT: "If I might add, maybe, for counsel to perhaps address...I'm looking at the original bill, page seven, lines 26 and 27; it deals with surrogate decision makers. It talks about...it has no attorney or guardian, in fact, to serve as the vulnerable adult's surrogate, we're covered there as well, then? That's my question." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "What's the question again?" REP. KOTT: "Well, the comments that were made earlier - I'm still looking at whether or not we're going to have to appoint counsel under this particular provision in Section three on page seven; Where there is no guardian or attorney (indiscernible) to serve as the vulnerable adult's decision- maker, will that person then have to acquire perhaps appointed counsel from the Office of Public Advocacy?" Number 291 MS. LOPER: "This section on surrogate decision makers for vulnerable adults is only honing in on the issue of whether they are going to receive protective services or not. It goes on to say that the vulnerable adult spouse is going to be the first on the priority that's going to be looked at, and on down the line to sisters and brothers and close relatives and friends. It only relates to the issue of whether there's going to be protective services or not, whether they can go ahead and do that or not. Under this bill, they don't have to petition the court at all." Number 310 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "From that standpoint, I think it would be fair to say that there is a cost reduction involved in this process, as opposed to a cost increase, because we didn't have the ability to make these kinds of decisions previously at the administrative level. Any other questions? What is the wish of the committee? Rep. James?" Number 315 REP. JEANNETTE JAMES: "I move to adopt the CS that is before us." CHAIRMAN PORTER: "The CS being for HB 376 dated 3/17/94-E. Is there objection? I see no objection." REP. JAMES: "I move that we send this bill out of committee with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations and ask for unanimous consent." Number 324 CHAIRMAN PORTER: "Motion to move and ask for unanimous consent. Is there discussion? Objection? I see none. Thank you, the bill is moved."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|