Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
01/26/2024 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Informational Hearing Public Guardianship by the Office of Public Advocacy | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
January 26, 2024
1:33 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Matt Claman, Chair
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Vice Chair
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Löki Tobin
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
INFORMATIONAL HEARING: PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP BY THE OFFICE OF
PUBLIC ADVOCACY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JAMES STINSON, Director
Office of Public Advocacy (OPA)
Department of Administration
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the informational
hearing on public guardianship.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Administrative Director
Office of the Administrative Director
Alaska Court System
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony and answered
questions during the informational hearing on public
guardianship.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:33:03 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Kiehl, Giessel, Tobin, Kaufman, and Chair Claman.
^PRESENTATION(S): Informational Hearing Public Guardianship by
the Office of Public Advocacy
INFORMATIONAL HEARING: PUBLIC GUARDIANSHIP
BY THE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY
[Contains discussion of SB 88.]
1:33:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced the consideration of an informational
hearing by the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) on Public
Guardianship. This is the first informational hearing on this
topic. He asked Mr. Stinson to put himself on the record,
provide a brief history of his background, and introduce the
topic of public guardians.
1:34:10 PM
JAMES STINSON, Director, Office of Public Advocacy (OPA),
Department of Administration, Anchorage, Alaska said that one of
the many duties OPA is tasked with is to run the public
guardianship program. There has been extensive press coverage
about the strain the guardianship system is facing. He said that
he is thankful for the news coverage because it highlights
important issues that have been building for decades and have
reached a critical point. Before his tenure in 2015, the system
was under an increasing amount of strain and is at a serious
pinch-point right now. He voiced a desire to influence and take
responsibility for what he can control as the director. The
Alaska Supreme Court ruling made it clear that he will not have
jurisdiction over the volume or timing of cases brought before
the agency. This presents a challenge as it hinders the
executive and legislative branches from allocating resources to
OPA. A hirable pool of public guardians does not exist. It takes
about two years to properly train and certify a guardian. OPA is
at risk for the continued loss of certified public guardians
even with attempts from the executive and legislative branches
to help. He said that the retention situation has temporarily
stabilized.
1:35:53 PM
MR. STINSON delineated several tasks OPA accomplished:
- A letter of agreement (LOA) was signed with unions to give a
floating step incentive. Employees receive a step increase after
they are certified as guardians. They receive two more after
four years with the agency; he noted they would lose this
incentive if they resigned.
- He found funding through the administration for a new overtime
policy. This was never an option before, so the overtime policy
has been a boon.
- The unit was restructured, which improved morale.
- Position control numbers (PCNs) were added.
MR. STINSON thanked the administration and the legislature for
their efforts. OPA would be in a far worse situation without
these improvements. He said efforts of the University of Alaska
Anchorage (UAA) and the Alaska Court System (ACS) offer
additional hope to relieve the lack of certified public
guardians.
1:36:40 PM
MR. STINSON said UAA is potentially creating a pipeline for
certified guardians for the first time. UAA will offer an 18-
month course possibly this spring or fall semester. For the
first time, this could provide a hiring pool for both private
entities and the Office of Public Advocacy.
MR. STINSON said the Alaska Court System (ACS) has proposals to
better fund and train court visitors. Court visitors assess the
necessity for guardians and seek alternative placements for
forwarding appointments outside of OPA. He said family members
are often deterred from taking on a caseload of one because it
feels overwhelming. ACS offers guidance to help family members
transition into the role of guardian. This is another component
to help resolve the issue of over-appointments.
MR. STINSON said that the situation is serious.
1:37:54 PM
SENATOR KIEHL estimated that OPA has more than 30 guardian
positions, and five have been added to the management plan. He
asked how many of those positions are filled.
MR. STINSON replied that all are filled except for two. He said
the office recently received a resignation, reducing the number
of certified public guardians from 17 to 16. OPA is waiting to
fill a Juneau PCN. The office is training three new people, and
others are in the pipeline to become certified. He reiterated
that there are two vacancies right now.
1:38:52 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought clarification about the number of guardian
positions and the types of other positions at OPA.
MR. STINSON replied that certified guardians must pass the
National Guardianship Association (NGA) Exam to become full-
case-carrying public guardian II. OPA hired entry-level public
guardian I positions as part of the office restructuring which
occurred in 2021 2022; however, a public guardian I cannot
carry cases until they are trained. Around the time that they
take their exam, they will be carrying some cases. He said the
distinction is that a public guardian II has passed the
statutorily required NGA Exam and is qualified to carry a full
caseload.
1:40:03 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that all 31 positions are
currently filled, except one or two, and about half of those are
certified guardians.
MR. STINSON replied that is correct.
1:40:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that he has been a public
advocate since 2019.
MR. STINSON replied that is correct.
1:40:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the number of public guardians had
changed significantly over time. He said he'd like to understand
the turnover rate.
MR. STINSON replied that perhaps at one point, the office had
19. He expressed his belief that the office had 17 last year.
The rolling rate of attrition is an issue and the office will
have slightly fewer certified guardians over time. He said it is
a big problem.
1:41:11 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked what types of positions within the State of
Alaska system are comparable to a certified guardian in terms of
training or ability requirements.
MR. STINSON replied that it is a highly unique position. He said
eligibility technicians assist public guardians. He offered to
go through their skillset if that would be helpful.
SENATOR KIEHL replied yes, that would be.
1:42:23 PM
MR. STINSON said one of OPA's challenges occurs when newly hired
public guardians realize they must take on multiple roles and
responsibilities. They have to have a rudimentary knowledge of
the following subjects:
- the law,
- real estate,
- accounting,
- health and medicine,
- Medicaid and Medicaid eligibility,
- general relief eligibility,
- Social Security Title II and Title XVI eligibility,
- trusts, income, and assets,
- how trusts interplay with eligibility and resources,
- how all income and assets will affect eligibility for needs-
based benefits,
- guardianship ethics,
- standards under NGA,
- medical decision-making,
- how to open a conservator account and manage an income,
- how real estate transactions affect eligibility,
- how to interact with all financial institutions with
guardianship and conservatorship orders, an ongoing challenge,
- food stamp eligibility and renewals,
- all housing options,
- what Medicaid waivers cover for housing,
- being an appointed Social Security representative payee,
- taxes,
- applying for PFDs, and
- the vocational needs, wants, triggers, and everything about
their clients.
1:43:30 PM
MR. STINSON said a background in mental health and disabilities
services is helpful. He said that is all he could think of off
the top of his head.
1:43:48 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that he was pleased OPA received the Letter
of Agreement (LOA) for a pay increase a couple of weeks ago. He
asked what the pay class is for public guardians.
MR. STINSON replied that the entry-level position starts at
range 16. Case-carrying positions jump to range 18 and then
increase by one range. He expressed his belief that a public
guardian III is a range 19 and can be supervisory, and a public
guardian IV is a range 20. He said there is one public guardian
(PG) IV.
1:44:35 PM
SENATOR TOBIN reported that, according to her notes, the
attrition rate was rather high last year. OPA lost four
employees in four months. She asked what the attrition rate was
for the previous six months and what the legislature could do to
help OPA regain public trust, either through tactics, support,
or buildup of its labor force.
1:45:25 PM
MR. STINSON replied that attrition rates continue to be a
consistent issue. He has been able to prevent multiple
resignations for the moment. However, employees are slated for
retirement starting in June. There are two anticipated
certifications, but the issue is that two are leaving in June.
So, in the coming months, OPA will have zero net gain. Five
people should become certified next year if they stay with the
program.
MR. STINSON spoke to public trust. Given the uniqueness and
complexity of guardianship, he said that it is hard to
adequately explain what is going on in a series of sound bites.
Hearings are a confidential proceeding, so the general public is
aware of an issue only when something goes wrong. He informed
the committee that OPA decided to actively collaborate with
Judge Aarseth to fix what happened with the cash integrity
matters even before the court issued its decision. He expressed
appreciation for Judge Aarseth's guidance. He acknowledged that
he understands the issue with public perception and offered to
answer detailed questions about it.
1:47:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN redirected the discussion to the number of office
positions. He asked if the executive branch is currently
requesting an increase of five guardian positions.
MR. STINSON replied there are a lot of moving pieces. He is not
entirely certain, but he thinks so. He said OPA was given
approval to double and triple-fill positions before the PCNs
were built. Usually, PCNs are built before filling a position,
so it has been confusing. The governor's budget also included
additional long-term, non-permanent positions. He expressed his
belief that the governor's budget also included a PG I, PG II, a
paralegal, and an eligibility technician II.
1:47:54 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said that about 15 to 17 of the 31 positions are
certified PG II positions. He asked how many PG IIs OPA needs to
manage the office caseload tolerably.
1:48:40 PM
MR. STINSON answered by speaking to the challenges of onboarding
certified guardians, which are:
- The lack of public guardians available in the labor force.
- The bottleneck in training is that it is difficult to train
three new people given the office caseload.
- The number of OPA cases is 1,627, a heavy caseload divided
amongst each PG II. This number is important because it
highlights OPA's vulnerability. Non-certified guardians carry
lower caseloads.
1:49:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN estimated that each PG II carries about 100 cases,
which sounds like an unreasonable caseload to manage. He asked
for a more realistic management number.
MR. STINSON replied that it is widely reported the National
Guardianship Association (NGA) standard is 40. Some states have
less, and he does not know of many with more.
1:50:40 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked whether there is an Alaska state guideline
and, if so, what it is.
MR. STINSON replied that statutes reference a high ethical duty,
but there is no number. Alaska adheres to the NGA standards.
1:51:09 PM
SENATOR TOBIN sought confirmation that a possible solution would
be to establish a state standard.
MR. STINSON replied that is a possibility; it is a policy call
between the legislature and the administration.
1:51:27 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL asked what the exit interviews reveal about the
reason for the constant turnover.
Mr. Stinson replied that he met with every public guardian. The
general consensus is that public guardians reach a point where
they are overwhelmed. They feel like time dedicated to the
benefit of one ward detracts from another ward. He expressed his
belief that guardians feel they are actively causing harm due to
their heavy caseload. Guardians find themselves jumping from one
emergency to another. He stated this type of reactive management
style perpetuates further emergencies as guardians lack the time
to address root causes of problems.
1:52:40 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked him to read the resignation letter that he
referenced.
MR. STINSON replied that he would read the introduction to the
letter. The individual who wrote the letter discusses her
background and how she became a public guardian. She thought it
essential to stay on top of the work and would volunteer her
time, coming in early and staying late. He read from the letter:
This job can mean the difference between someone
freezing to death because they don't have adequate
housing, starving because they don't have food, being
trafficked because it is the only way to gain access
to shelter, food, etc. When my caseload rose, I was
not just working more hours; I was not sleeping
because I was worried about clients not getting
services or housing in time. When I was sleeping, I
was waking up with tasks I needed to do or had
forgotten because the days are so busy and there is
hardly time to think. I became so physically,
mentally, and emotionally exhausted that I needed to
remove myself from the situation and gave my notice.
As I think back to this time, it brings me to tears
because I believe I failed the people I so desperately
wanted to help. The people who accept the
responsibility to stay take PG seriously, and are
driven to serve.
MR. STINSON said this individual was with the agency for just
over two years. He pointed out this PG started in 2019 and left
in 2022 around the time of his tenure.
1:54:02 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that, based on the PGA
recommended caseload of 40, OPA would need about 32 PG IIs to
reduce each caseload to a manageable 40 50 cases.
MR. STINSON replied that he did not disagree. It is more a
question of whether that is a possibility.
1:54:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said while "possibilities" are one topic, another
is the illusion that OPA can adequately serve the most
vulnerable if the office is underfunded. He said the legislature
sets OPA up for failure if it makes appropriations at an
underserved level.
1:55:12 PM
MR. STINSON said the impetus behind the moratorium was never
about abdicating duty. He provided a brief overview of the
moratorium, noting there is no way one public guardian can
adequately serve and fulfill the needs of over 100 individuals.
The fear was that the public guardian would become illusory,
which tended to be what happened. The moratorium forced the
illusion to drop. It forced the system to say it needed to keep
an eye on the ward because the individual was not adequately
protected. The system was designed for public guardians to be an
absolute last resort.
MR. STINSON expressed his belief that guardianship is
misunderstood; it is a unique type of appointment. It is not
like a CINA appointment or a criminal appointment. It is not the
government coming to take your liberty, property, and children.
It is not a limited appointment; a PG takes full control over
another adult life for the duration of that person's natural
life. He explained why overloaded public guardians hit a point
where they become an obstruction, failing to be effective. The
ward's personal and daily affairs flow through the PG. The flow
is blocked if the PG does not have the time to address problems.
He said this was part of the impetus for the moratorium.
1:56:49 PM
SENATOR KIEHL calculated that a Range 16 makes $27.50 per hour
and estimated that the Letter of Agreement is worth another 90
cents after certification. He expressed his belief that the
State offered eligibility techs a $4,000 bonus due to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) backlog. The
subcommittee may need to have a significant budget discussion on
this. He asked what other suggestions and steps the legislature
ought to consider besides court visitors and finding family
members and private individuals who can serve as guardians.
MR. STINSON encouraged conversations between the legislature and
the [Governor's Legislative Office] (GLO), stating that long-
term options may exist. He said Mr. Wooliver's efforts are a key
component. He said though it may seem the court system and OPA
disagree, they are partners in finding solutions. He voiced
optimism that the court visitor coordinator has taken steps to
better train court personnel. He reiterated that Mr. Wooliver's
efforts are a key component.
1:58:30 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN brought up the subject of able and competent
individuals who are fine without a guardian. He asked if a
public guardian had ever been appointed unnecessarily, and the
appointment was later reversed.
1:59:14 PM
MR. STINSON responded that reversals are tricky. The burden
shifts to the individual placed under protection to show by
clear and convincing evidence that protection is not needed.
This can pose a roadblock to individuals.
MR. STINSON said OPA has successfully reduced authorizations.
For example, several cash integrity cases were reduced to
[representative] payees and other authorization types. OPA's
perspective is that there are issues with the appointment
process and a rush to guardianship. The way the system operates
sometimes incentivizes this. He described the process stating
individuals with deficits are brought before well-intentioned,
busy judges in a 15-minute hearing. The pressure to err on the
side of "protecting somebody" is very great. He said that any
public guardian entity in the country would say guardianship is
the greatest restriction on individual liberty short of
incarceration. OPA shares this perspective. Differences in this
perspective exist and are part of the problem. He said wards can
get reduced authority and OPA can go to the Alaska Supreme Court
to advocate against an inappropriate appointment. The problem is
that it can take two years to get a determination, and a high
standard exists to overturn a decision. He said that his data
suggests that sometimes there are issues in the system with
matters like "respond to counsel" and "stipulating to
incapacity."
2:01:00 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said he wanted to know how many cases he is talking
about. OPA has roughly 1600 active guardian appointments; of
those, he asked about the number of times in the last year:
- the court declined a request for a guardian appointment,
- the court found a person did not need a guardian, and
- there was an effort to reverse a guardianship.
2:01:33 PM
MR. STINSON said he does not know if his data is that clear, and
OPA does not necessarily have the staffing resources to litigate
given its overwhelming caseloads.
MR. STINSON stated OPA received 15 new cases on average every
month. There were only 15 people on the waitlist as of October
11, about five months into the moratorium. Towards the end of
the moratorium, heading into December, there were never more
than 30 people on the waitlist. He pointed out that usually,
there would have been a much higher volume of appointments;
however, the court found family members or [representative]
payees as alternatives to guardianships and conservatorships. He
said these numbers come from a decent, seven-month dataset. They
suggest that when OPA was unavailable, a lot of other options
were found.
2:02:35 PM
MR. STINSON spoke to five fairly critical cases. He opined that
the judge did not use a lot of available tools in these cases.
He stated that one tool the judge could have used is the single-
transaction authority. A judge can craft specific orders through
a single-transaction authority which usually fixes the greatest
need for an individual short of full guardianship.
2:03:16 PM
SENATOR TOBIN expressed curiosity about the 10 20 new cases
each month. She referenced her notes which indicated he had a
fear of the "silver tidal wave." She asked what he sees for the
guardianship program five-years out and how many guardians OPA
will need.
2:03:45 PM
MR. STINSON answered that his greatest concern is the silver
tidal wave. He is worried that if nothing is done in the next
five years to change structural issues, elderly Alaskans may not
have a public guardian section. The State will be unable to save
this program if issues hit a critical point. He expressed
appreciation that conversations are happening now to address
problems. He said the State needs to fix some structural issues
or bring adequate resources to bear so that OPA, the court
system, and the Alaska Mental Trust Authority can work together
to find creative solutions. He said that OPA is in such a
bottleneck right now that it will be problematic if the office
gets hit with the silver tsunami.
2:05:16 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN invited Mr. Wooliver to discuss the court system
work with OPA.
2:05:34 PM
DOUG WOOLIVER, Deputy Administrative Director, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System (ACS), Anchorage,
Alaska, provided invited testimony and answered questions during
the Informational Hearing on Public Guardianship. He discussed
the two elements of the ACS budget that touch on guardianship
problems:
1. Increased pay for court visitors.
Court visitors conduct investigations to ensure that a
guardianship or something less than a guardianship is needed.
This function transferred from OPA to ACS last year or the
year before, and both entities support this change. ACS
currently handles this function. He said ACS requests an
increase in the pay rate for court visitors to incentivize
retention.
2:06:31 PM
2. Three new positions.
The Alaska Court System monitors private guardians. He said
private guardians are volunteers and family members. Seventy-
one percent of all guardians fall into this category, the
most common type of guardianship. He said guardianship is
complicated and drew attention to the long list of guardian
tasks. ACS offers training on its website, has a helpline,
and has a federal grant that pays for two monitors. These
monitors oversee filings submitted by guardians and provide
training and help. A helpline is available now, and the new
positions would help staff it. He said that more private
citizens filling this role appropriately and competently
means fewer cases directed to OPA. The long list of guardian
duties is overwhelming and intimidating to people. Though
these positions will not solve all of OPA's problems, more
private citizens would be willing to do the job with better
court system support, monitoring, and training.
2:09:00 PM
SENATOR TOBIN asked where Alaskans can find information to help
them support, care for, and handle the administrative affairs of
their vulnerable or elderly family members.
MR. WOOLIVER replied that the Alaska Court System (ACS) provides
guidance on those issues. Ideally, individuals would get a
lawyer, but ACS has a lot of information on its website. The
function of the three new positions is to help Alaskans who are
overwhelmed and seek guidance because a family member needs
help. He said the federal grant for these two positions is
expiring, and ACS would like to keep them.
2:10:27 PM
SENATOR KIEHL sought clarification on the ACS funding request,
asking whether the funds are for program growth or to maintain
the status quo.
MR. WOOLIVER replied that he believes there are two people under
the grant. ACS would like to have three positions; one for
growth and two to maintain the status quo.
SENATOR KIEHL asked about the court system's talent pipeline and
the requisite background for these two positions.
MR. WOOLIVER replied that he would find out about the two grant
positions and the third position. The pipeline is an important
question, and he brought up PG caseload caps. The number of
people needing guardian services exceeds that which is
available. OPA is unable to accept more cases; it has reached
its cap. The State needs another resource, and individuals need
guardians. He said it is hard to find trained guardians because
there are none.
2:11:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL wondered whether ACS is recruiting hires from
among OPA's staff.
2:11:42 PM
MR. WOOLIVER replied that these positions are not guardians, and
ACS did not recruit them from OPA offices. The function of these
positions is to help potential private guardians with forms and
resources. He said that fraud and abuse exist in guardianships.
A big part of these three positions is to monitor reports, look
for red flags, fraud, and abuse.
2:12:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN addressed the issue of over-appointing guardians
and sought confirmation that part of the court's efforts aim at
reducing these numbers by:
- helping potential private guardians with the application
process and
- ensuring court visitors make appropriate appointments.
MR. WOOLIVER replied yes.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if this is occurring already.
2:13:07 PM
MR. WOOLIVER replied that is hard to pinpoint the number of
over-appointments. It is somewhat subjective. One judge thinks
it is appropriate, the other may not. One guardian says yes, the
other says no. He said coming up with a number is not as easy as
determining the number of felonies filed. Some of the numbers
are easy and objective, and others are subjective. He said that
OPA believes there is a problem with over-appointment, not
everyone agrees. He said that it depends which side of the bench
one sits on. While he acknowledged that there are cases that
could be done by someone other than a public guardian, there
needs to be an alternative party available to take
responsibility. He reminded the committee that it is not just
guardians that are a limited resource, other services are in
short supply too, like representative payees. He reiterated that
all of the resources are limited.
2:14:20 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if it is the court's perspective that there
is a problem with over-appointments.
MR. WOOLIVER replied that anytime the court over-appoints, it is
a problem. He said that ACS does not know how often this
happens.
2:14:37 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referenced a comment about people needing less aid
than a guardianship. He asked the difference between a
conservator and a guardian and if the courts could appoint a
conservator rather than a guardian.
MR. WOOLIVER replied that sometimes an individual only needs
help with money. In this situation, ACS appoints a conservator
who only handles money. Sometimes a conservator and a guardian
are appointed, but more often, a full guardian is appointed and
makes all decisions.
2:15:15 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if OPA provides conservatorships.
MR. WOOLIVER replied that he believes so but deferred the
question to OPA.
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Mr. Stinson.
MR. STINSON replied yes, OPA does.
2:15:36 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if the PG I, the position that is not
licensed, is appointed to fulfill the function of conservator.
MR. STINSON replied no. He said although conservator cases are
slightly less complicated, guardians usually carry a mix of
cases based on region. Public conservators have a lot to do. He
said family members have slightly different ethical standards.
Family members have a caseload of one and can funnel personal
resources into that family member in ways that a government
official cannot.
2:16:26 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN inquired whether it is his understanding that some
of the public guardian appointments might have been more
suitable as conservatorships.
MR. STINSON affirmed that this is the agency's perception. He
said that Mr. Wooliver highlighted this fundamental issue. He
offered an example of the situation. Suppose an individual only
needs a representative payee. OPA is at risk of being appointed
the individual's conservator if none are available. The same is
true for individuals who have a trust. The courts are not
supposed to appoint OPA only to handle trusts. However, if
someone has a trust and is stepped down out of a conservatorship
or guardianship, there is always the risk that OPA can get left
in that case. He said OPA tries to resolve these as they come up
and push back on what it sees as inappropriate appointments. He
stated that these appointments occur due to a perception that
OPA serves as a catchall, last train stop agency.
2:18:09 PM
SENATOR KIEHL asked for a definition of rep payee.
CHAIR CLAMAN directed the question to Mr. Stinson.
MR. STINSON replied that a rep payee manages benefit money,
Social Security, on behalf of an individual. He explained that,
for over twenty years, Alaska had a cottage industry of private
rep payees that would charge a low but reasonable private market
fee. Rep payees would deposit Social Security in one account.
Individuals would pay the rep payee fees out of a separate
account, which usually had either a Native corporation dividend
check or a permanent fund dividend check deposited in it. This
system worked fairly well in Alaska for a very long time until
the Social Security Administration noticed it and cleared out
the whole rep-payee cottage industry. New nonprofit rep payees
have sprung up, but some are reaching capacity. The courts are
not allowed to appoint OPA as just a rep payee. This means the
courts might appoint OPA as a full conservator if it thinks an
individual needs help. He said these appointments are very
problematic for OPA.
2:19:55 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL expressed concern about the talent pipeline and
wondered where OPA will find guardians. The state is seeing an
exodus of Alaskans from age 18 to 64, which includes young
people who can fill these roles. She pointed out that guardians
become overwhelmed and burnt out in two years. She asked where
their replacements are.
SENATOR GIESSEL said that it is one thing to say:
- Just hire more.
She said according to Mr. Stinson, he has not been able to
expand his staff.
- Just pay more.
She conjectured that guardians want to see results and make a
difference. They are not simply motivated by money. Currently,
they are unable to see results because they are overwhelmed.
SENATOR GIESSEL asserted that the system is in a vicious circle
and in a dilemma. She concluded her remarks by asking where the
pipeline of people with the compassion to do this job is and how
to prevent burnout so staff do not leave.
2:21:58 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN agreed with her comments. He said paying more alone
does not solve the problem. The odds of remaining in a job are
low when the salary is inadequate and the job is overwhelming,
whereas the odds of retention increase when there is a
manageable workload and reasonable pay. He said it would help if
the legislature passed SB 88.
SENATOR GIESSEL commented that the subject of SB 88 is an aside.
2:22:50 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN concurred but emphasized these are all parts of the
same package. Statistically, people leave in two to five years.
People have to want to join the talent pipeline. OPA's pipeline
will never fill up unless the agency is able to retain its
workers.
2:23:06 PM
SENATOR GIESSEL said SB 88 is about a long-term relationship
between an employer and an employee. She highlighted that it's
more than just a transactional business relationship where the
employer pays the employee to do a job. Instead, it is a social
relationship wherein the employer commits to ensuring the
employee is taken care of beyond the current job. She reiterated
that OPA needs a pipeline.
2:23:51 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said that this hearing highlights some challenges.
One key challenge is that people who provide guardianship
services, which state law and court appointments require, are
walking into a terrible work environment. The level of work is
overwhelming and would wear anyone out.
2:24:37 PM
SENATOR KIEHL agreed. He brought up private guardianships,
commenting that other states have professional associations of
guardians filled with paralegals and attorneys. He said that he
is not suggesting these associations are the solution for
indigent people with severe deficits. Rather, it is to point out
these types of organizations have trained, passionate people in
the public and private sectors who are in a talent pipeline. He
asked about finding talent through similar kinds of private
entities operating in Alaska.
2:26:13 PM
MR. STINSON replied that private guardianship providers have the
most resourced clients with substantial assets and pay; these
guardianships charge high fees. The experiment with Cache
Integrity Services was an attempt to make a nonprofit for
financially constrained people; unfortunately, the outcome had a
chilling effect on the ability to propose such solutions again.
He said private providers with whom he is familiar do not take
more than 20 cases. He said he is aware of a private guardian in
Fairbanks. The court ordered her to reduce her caseload from 57
to 40 cases. He fears those cases will end up in OPA. He said
the private provider sector is slim, with only an individual
license. There is discussion about the feasibility of a private
organizational license.
2:27:45 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether OPA collects aggregate data about
guardianships for Alaskans with cognitive decline, particularly
Alzheimer's and dementia populations.
MR. STINSON replied no, not specifically. He said that OPA
collects data in general categories with co-occurring
morbidities. People are classified in more than one category.
OPA does not have a good mechanism for identifying primary
disease populations like Alzheimer's and dementia populations.
2:28:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN sought confirmation that OPA caseload is so high
that collecting aggregate data would overwhelm an already
overwhelmed system.
MR. STINSON replied that is part of the challenge. He said OPA
does not even have the staffing capacity to potentially decrease
cases by initiating court filings and requesting reductions.
2:29:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN conjectured this topic would come up in a budget
discussion. He asked, short of statutory changes, what other
states have done to improve unmanageable caseloads.
2:29:49 PM
MR. STINSON replied there are three main strategies, but they
might involve legislation. He listed:
- Public guardians screen their own cases.
This is a common strategy because the PG has the expertise to
determine whether somebody wants a guardian. Some states house
guardians in the judiciary branch of government. Alaska moved
guardians from the judiciary branch in 1986; by the 1990s,
Alaska was one of maybe six states that had a stand-alone
public guardian section.
- Restrictive policies.
An example of a restrictive policy is Tennessee policy that
restricts public guardianship to individuals aged 60 or older.
This policy is embedded within an Office of Elder Affairs-type
agency.
- Mechanisms for refusing cases.
He explained that some states have mechanisms that bring
resources to bear in an orderly fashion when cases are refused.
2:31:48 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked if there has been criticism about PGs
conducting screenings. Specifically, conflicts that influence
whether an individual receives help based on system capacity
rather than factors based on needs.
2:32:08 PM
MR. STINSON replied that he surmised most criticisms occur in
systems where public guardians are part of the judiciary. He
described the models of several states:
- Nebraska follows two procedures depending on whether public
guardians are at full capacity or not. He surmised that is how
some states avoid that conflict of interest.
- Texas employs a "refusal at certain point" model instead of a
screening model. He expressed his belief that the judiciary
system does not house the public guardians in Texas. He
speculated that many states use a hybridized version of the
Texas model where PGs screen individuals on the front end,
offer advice about capacity, and determine which cases have the
most pressing needs rather than just approving or rejecting
cases based on system capacity.
- Oregon has eight public guardians for 4.3 million people and
keeps a waitlist of 500 to 1,000 people. Oregon's total ward
load is between 1,600 and 3,000. He expressed surprise that
Alaska's total ward load is comparable to a state six times its
population. He said these numbers seem significantly
disproportionate, even considering Alaska's unique needs. He
wondered if this speaks to a broader issue within Alaska.
2:34:09 PM
SENATOR KIEHL said that the State of Oregon's numbers need to be
kept in perspective. He explained that both the county and the
state provide public guardian services. He noted that Multnomah
County, which includes Portland, has twelve public guardians.
MR. STINSON said his point was well taken, but noted Oregon's
capacity is still surprising for a state of that size.
2:35:48 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Claman adjourned the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting at 2:35 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2022.11.02 Nick Hard v Office of Public Advocacy Superior Court Order.pdf |
SJUD 1/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
|
| 2023.11.20 OPA letter to Anchorage Civil Super Court Judges.pdf |
SJUD 1/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
|
| 2023.12.08 Alaska Supreme Court Order to OPA.pdf |
SJUD 1/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
|
| 2023.10.27 OPA ADN Article.pdf |
SJUD 1/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |
|
| 2024.01.29 Senate Judiciary OPA ADN Articles.pdf |
SJUD 1/26/2024 1:30:00 PM |