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.