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." 9:46:56 AM Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing of HB 155. It was the intent of the committee to hear the introduction of the bill, the sectional analysis, and any invited and public testimony. Co-Chair Stedman asked that all presenters and testifiers who came before the committee were attired in adherence with the formal dress code. He stated there were some exceptions, such as an individual who had a broken arm. Co-Chair Bishop noted that there were spare ties available for those in need. 9:48:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, SPONSOR, relayed that HB 155 attempted to fix a flaw in the state that was negatively impacting the Alaska Court System's (ACS) visitor program. He explained that the program was created to act as an investigative arm of the court in certain protective probate proceedings such as guardianships and conservatorships. Since 1984, the court visitor program has been administered by the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA). Unfortunately, there was no legislative history that clarified why a judicial branch program was placed under the direction of an executive branch office. The bill was developed in collaboration with OPA and the court system and both entities had endorsed the bill. He reported that state law gave OPA the responsibility to provide court visitors in guardianship proceedings and involuntary medication proceedings. The executive branch paid for the court visitors because it was the branch under which OPA fell. The court system independently contracted with and directly paid for court visitors in conservatorship proceedings. He explained that OPA was only responsible for providing court visitors in guardianship proceedings. The current structure of the program was both inefficient and confusing. The bill would solve the inefficiency by moving the court visitor program from OPA to the court system. Representative Tuck explained that court visitors were neutral parties with specialized training who conducted independent investigations into whether guardianships or conservatorships were necessary. Guardianships were enacted for individuals who were unable to care for their own wellbeing due to incapacity or disability, while conservatorships were used to manage the financial and personal affairs of an impaired person or minor. The court visitors also participated in investigations to determine whether a potentially impaired individual was able to give their informed consent. 9:51:57 AM Senator von Imhof asked if the committee would consider the fiscal note [by the Alaska Judiciary System with OMB component 768 and control code EGgOL] during the current meeting. Co-Chair Bishop responded that he intended to hear the bill and set it aside, but she was welcome to address the fiscal note. Senator von Imhof asked why moving the program would cost $960,000 according to the fiscal note. She wondered why a new full-time position was proposed as well. Representative Tuck responded that the proposed new employee would be responsible for the training and oversight of court visitors. He noted that the program had been underfunded for a while and the move presented an opportunity to bring it back up to a more appropriate funding level. He suggested that Mr. Doug Wooliver from the court system address the question as well. 9:53:13 AM DOUG WOOLIVER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, echoed the sponsor's assertion that the bill was developed in collaboration with OPA. The reason there was a difference in the fiscal note was because OPA had never provided training for court visitors in the past and the courts would like to improve the program. The employee would provide oversight, training, and scheduling for the court visitors. He thought the tasks should have been happening already and hoped the program would improve when moved to the court system. Co-Chair Stedman noted that around $100,000 of the cost of the shift was due to the repositioning of the duties to the courts. He asked if the courts could function without the addition of the $100,000 spread. Mr. Wooliver responded that the courts could function without the funds, but the program would retain all of the deficiencies that it currently had. It was important to improve the program if the court system were to take it over, which would require additional funds. Senator Olson shared the same concern as Senator von Imhof. He asked if the improvements to the program would be worth the $960,000 in the fiscal note. Mr. Wooliver noted that most of the cost simply reflected a transfer of funds from OPA to the court system. The only increase was the roughly $100,000 for the new position. Senator Olson noted that the amount would be recurring every year. Mr. Wooliver responded in the affirmative, however the funds would originate from OPA's budget. He explained that OPA's budget would show a decrement due to the transfer of funds. 9:56:48 AM MICHAEL MASON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, read from the sectional analysis (copy on file): Section 1 Repeals and reenacts AS 13.26.226 (d) to read: The Alaska Court System shall provide visitors and experts in guardianship proceedings under AS 13.26.291. The Alaska Court System may contract for services of court-appointed visitors and experts. Section 2 Amends AS 13.26.291 (a) to stipulate that the Alaska Court System shall bear the costs of the visitors and experts appointed under AS 13.26.226 (c). Section 3 Amends AS 44.21.410 (a) to remove paragraph 2 and renumber the remaining paragraph. Section 4 Amends AS.21.420 (c) to remove language allowing the Commissioner of Administration to contract for services for court visitors and experts to perform the duties set out in AS 44.21.410. Section 5 Amends AS 44.21.440 (b) to remove a reference to court visitors from language prohibiting the Office of Public Advocacy from using improper pressure to influence the professional judgment of a person paid by the office. Section 6 Amends AS.30.839 (d) to remove language allowing the court to direct the Office of Public Advocacy to provide a court visitor to investigate whether a patient can give or withhold informed consent in psychotropic medication proceedings during involuntary commitments. Section 7 Amends 47.30.839 to add a new subsection to read: (j) The Alaska Court System shall provide visitors in proceedings under this section. The Alaska Court System may contract for services of court-appointed visitors. Section 8 Amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska to add transition language stipulating that the act applies to guardianship proceedings under AS 13.26.291 and proceedings under AS.30.839 commenced on or after the effective date of the act. The section further amends the uncodified law of the State of Alaska to ensure that the Office of Public Advocacy shall provide for the services of visitors in proceedings under AS 47.30.839 before the effective date of the act. Section 9 Provides an effective date of July 1, 2022. 9:59:26 AM Senator Wilson wondered if it would be better for the new employee to belong to an entity other than the court system as the employee would be asking the court to make decisions on an individual's wellbeing. Representative Tuck relayed that the position would be contracted out and there was already a neutral third party involved in the process. The bill would make the process more efficient and less confusing by placing it under the proper branch. He relayed that the courts were the parties that made the decisions in the end. It was unclear why the program had been designated to OPA and it had been identified as a problem for a long time. Senator Wilson was concerned that the court would be paying someone to agree or disagree with the court's judgements. He thought a separation seemed wise. Representative Tuck responded that the decisions were not made after the investigation was complete. He invited his staff to comment. Mr. Mason suggested that Mr. James Stinson from OPA comment on Senator Wilson's concern. 10:01:36 AM JAMES STINSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PUBLIC ADVOCACY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (via teleconference), responded that currently, the court system directly appointed and paid for court visitors in conservatorship cases. He explained that OPA paid for the same services with the same contractors in guardianship cases. He thought that the public had the misconception that OPA was running a monopoly on the proceedings and had undue influence because OPA also supplied the attorneys for the cases. The reality was that all court visitors, regardless of case type, were under the judicial rules of conduct per case law. The court visitors reported to the judiciary branch and acted as an investigative arm of the court. He relayed that OPA's only real responsibility was to provide payment to the court visitors if the case at hand was a guardianship case. 10:03:22 AM Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony. Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED publics testimony. HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Bishop discussed the agenda for the afternoon.