Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/05/2021 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 | |
| HB57 | |
| HB155 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2021
1:04 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Liz Snyder, Vice Chair (via Teams)
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Christopher Kurka
Representative Sarah Vance
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Eastman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to the budget reserve fund established under
art. IX, sec. 17(d), Constitution of the State of Alaska;
relating to money available for appropriation for purposes of
applying art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the State of Alaska;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 57 OUT OF COMMITTEE
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."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: FUNDS SUBJECT TO CBR SWEEP PROVISION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
02/18/21 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/15/21
02/18/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/18/21 (H) JUD, FIN
03/10/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/10/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/17/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/17/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/17/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/19/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/19/21 (H) -- Public Testimony --
03/24/21 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/24/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/29/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/29/21 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/21 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/31/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/31/21 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/05/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 155
SHORT TITLE: COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TUCK
03/29/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/21 (H) JUD, FIN
04/05/21 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 155.
JAMES STINSON
Director, Office of Public Advocacy
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 155.
DOUG WOOLIVER
Deputy Administrative Director
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during the hearing on HB 155.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:46 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Drummond, Kreiss-
Tompkins, Snyder (via teleconference) and Claman were present at
the call to order. Representatives Vance and Kurka arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 57-FUNDS SUBJECT TO CBR SWEEP PROVISION
1:05:19 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 57, "An Act relating to the budget reserve fund
established under art. IX, sec. 17(d), Constitution of the State
of Alaska; relating to money available for appropriation for
purposes of applying art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the State
of Alaska; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR CLAMAN announced this was the committee's third hearing of
HB 57, and no amendments had been submitted. He invited final
comments.
1:06:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said she is fine with HB 57, which she
described as "something that needs to be done." She indicated a
need for education for legislators as to the reason for a
reverse sweep.
1:06:28 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN commended the work of the bill sponsor,
Representative Andy Josephson, for analyzing "the details of the
lawsuits that put us in this situation and the details that were
raised." He expressed his support for HB 57.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted for the record that Representative Snyder
would be voting via Teams.
1:06:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report HB 57 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 57 was reported out of the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:07:25 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:07 p.m. to 1:12 p.m.
HB 155-COURT SYSTEM PROVIDE VISITORS & EXPERTS
1:11:59 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."
CHAIR CLAMAN noted this was the first hearing of HB 155 in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
1:12:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 155. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
The Court Visitor Program was created to act as an
investigative arm of the Alaska Court System in
certain protective probate proceedings. Court visitors
conduct independent investigations into whether
guardianships or conservatorships are necessary. They
also review each existing guardianship and
conservatorship at least once every three years.
Additionally, court visitors participate in
psychotropic medication proceedings during involuntary
commitments to investigate whether the patient can
give or withhold informed consent.
Since 1984, the court visitor program has been
administered by the Office of Public Advocacy.
Unfortunately, there is no legislative history that
clarifies why this judicial branch program was placed
under the direction of an executive branch office. The
only inference that can be made is that anything
having to do with "guardianships" was placed with OPA
because the office provides public guardians and
attorneys for these proceedings.
As the court visitor program has continued to grow, it
has become increasingly unwieldy because OPA cannot
effectively supervise independent contractors who act
as "the eyes and ears" of the court. There is also
duplicity of services between the executive and
judicial branches of government because the court
system independently contracts with and directly pays
for court visitors in conservatorship proceedings. OPA
is only responsible for providing court visitors in
guardianship proceedings. The differences between how
OPA and the Court System handle these proceedings have
caused frustration among the court visitors who work
both types of cases.
Both the Alaska Court System and OPA agree that
transferring the program to the court system is long
overdue and would make the program more efficient. The
transfer would allow the Court System to put in place
standards for reports and who it chooses to use as a
court visitor.
1:15:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
budget for the court visitor program is approximately $854,400,
which is included in the governor's proposal for the fiscal year
2022 (FY 22) budget. He said the fiscal note from the Alaska
Court System states that one additional person would be needed
"to provide the training and supervision and scheduling of the
court visitors."
1:16:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the committee would hear invited
testimony.
1:17:17 PM
JAMES STINSON, Director, Office of Public Advocacy, Department
of Administration, remarked that HB 155 has been "a long time
coming." He said when he started as director a couple years
ago, he found it odd that this program was housed with OPA, and
discovered his opinion was shared within the agency. He
recalled a legislative audit from the early 2000s that raised
all these same arguments recommended transferring the program.
He speculated that the issue "just kept dropping off the radar."
He described HB 155 as "one of those win-win-win scenarios,"
because he cannot think of a downside to this proposal that
would provide more efficiency to running the program, result in
better outcomes, and allow the court system to set standards of
practice, which OPA was never able to do. He explained that
there was always a fear for OPA about making a change that could
affect the court system. He said in a conservatorship case, the
court system directly appoints court visitors; in a guardianship
case, OPA has that responsibility.
MR. STINSON said there is often a perceived conflict by members
of the public, which HB 155 would resolve. He explained that
because OPA is organized as multiple law firms under one
umbrella, it sometimes can be confusing to see OPA is the public
guardian, the court visitor, the respondent attorney in the
guardianship proceeding, and in rare circumstances the provider
of a guardian ad litem or expert, even though OPA is just paying
for the guardian ad litem or expert.
1:21:08 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Administrative Director, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, reminded the
committee that the court generally does not take a position on
bills; however, HB 155 is a joint effort by OPA and the Alaska
Court System. He echoed Mr. Stinson's comments that this issue
has been around a long time and just kept dropping off the
radar. He said there are inefficiencies and frustrations from
having court visitor function housed in OPA. Under HB 155, the
court system will be able to set up a training regiment and
standards in guardianship cases; it already does so in
conservatorship cases, which are similar and "frequently go hand
in hand." He said the court system supports HB 155.
1:23:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether there would be a fiscal note
that reflects the judicial branch of this transfer.
1:23:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded yes, there would be an increase in
the Alaska Court System's FY 22 budget request. He indicated
that in the first year that would reflect the cost of training.
1:24:00 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 1:24 p.m.
1:24:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether, under HB 155, the guardian ad litem
function would stay in OPA.
1:25:07 PM
MR. STINSON confirmed that is correct. In response to a follow-
up question, he offered his understanding that HB 155 would
replace OPA with the court system "where necessary." He
reviewed that currently the court system provides for court
visitors in conservatorship proceedings, so the only thing that
needed to be changed was the guardianship aspect of statute.
1:27:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked whether the additional position
would be permanent or temporary.
1:28:01 PM
MR. WOOLIVER responded that currently OPA does not do training
for court visitors, and the court would like to institute
regular training. He noted it is a full-time position with
turnover. He said [under HB 155], the court would be doubling
its caseload by a couple hundred additional cases. He indicated
this would be an ongoing position, and he said because of Baby
Boomers, this need is not only a current one but is also a
growing need.
1:29:26 PMs
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE mentioned appointments to assess competency
and administering medication, and she asked whether there was a
crossover with the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA)
"in being able to fund this position."
1:30:07 PM
MR. WOOLIVER answered that in general, AMHTA does not like to
fund full-time positions in other entities. He said the court
system gets grant funds from AMHTA that help support programs,
and the trust helps to set up some "therapeutic courts," but he
added that it is on a temporary basis. He said the vast
majority of the work of court visitors in both guardianship and
conservatorship is "for people that may not be beneficiaries of
the trust." In response to a follow-up question, he said he
does not know how many people require involuntary administration
of psychotropic drugs, but he said he could seek an answer.
1:31:57 PM
MR. STINSON said he does not know the answer and would be
interested to find out not only how many are administered the
medication, but also "how many are actually successful in
requiring involuntary medication."
1:32:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether there is some frequency in cases that
begin as involuntary cases and end up as voluntary medication
cases.
MR. STINSON offered his understanding that the answer is yes.
He noted there is legislation currently being proposed regarding
emergency crisis centers and a new framework for assessing that
frequency. He said when someone becomes more stabilized, there
is a chance that "medication compliance may come back on board."
1:33:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN explained he had mentioned this scenario to point
out that it could change the statistical analysis.
1:33:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained her questions were an attempt to
see the bigger picture and would have not bearing on whether she
supports HB 155, because "obviously it's a need."
1:34:38 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony on HB 155. After
ascertaining there was no one who wished to testify, he closed
public testimony.
1:34:55 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that HB 155 was held over.
1:35:27 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 57 v. B 2.18.2021.PDF |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sponsor Statement 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Sectional Analysis v. B 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - OMB Letter 7.12.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - CBR Sweep Breakdown by Fund - LFD March 2020 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - AEA Memo on PCE Sweep 8.24.2019.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Hickel v. Cowper May 27, 1994 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Finance Outline of AS 37.10.420 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - Legislative Research Memo GF Definitions 9.1.2020.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY19 Single Audit - Finding No. 2019-089 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Additional Document - FY20 CAFR General Fund Accounts 3.8.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 PowerPoint Presentation 3.10.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/10/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Opposing Document - Testimony Received by 4.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 57 Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact 3.6.2021.pdf |
HJUD 3/17/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/19/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/24/2021 1:30:00 PM HJUD 3/29/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 57 |
| HB 155 v. B 3.29.2021.PDF |
HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Sponsor Statement v. B 4.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/7/2021 1:00:00 PM SJUD 1/31/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Sectional Analysis v. B 4.5.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/7/2021 1:00:00 PM SJUD 1/31/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Supporting Document - Office of Public Advocacy Letter 3.31.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/7/2021 1:00:00 PM SJUD 1/31/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 3.31.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |
| HB 155 Fiscal Note DOA-OPA 4.2.2021.pdf |
HJUD 4/5/2021 1:00:00 PM HJUD 4/7/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 155 |