House subcommittee weighs where to house new guardianship oversight office amid competing amendments

Chairman Freilich, presiding over the House Subcommittee on Senate Bill 2029, opened a focused hearing on proposals to create an Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship and considered competing amendments that would place the office in different parts of state government.

The bill before the subcommittee — introduced from the judiciary side and discussed in multiple draft forms (versions 4000, 4001 and an amendment credited to Senator Judy Lee, discussed as 4003) — would establish separate entities for operations, investigation and a review board to oversee professional and public guardians. Garrett Voigt, staff attorney with the Supreme Court, told the committee the 4001 draft contains only “a small technical change,” shifting an exemption and adding “human service zones and their members, including the director” to the list of exemptions to advertising restrictions.

Why it matters: the subcommittee must decide not only the statutory language but where the office will be housed, which affects oversight, conflicts of interest, staffing and whether existing state programs can provide the enforcement and training functions lawmakers want. The task force that drafted the bill met beginning in late 2023 and recommended a court-centered structure that separates policy and budgeting (an operations committee) from investigation and adjudication (investigation counsel and a review board), arguing that separation reduces conflicts of interest within the judiciary.

Committee members heard repeated concerns about the Senator Lee amendment’s removal of an independent investigation counsel and certain enforcement mechanisms. Garrett Voigt said removal of investigation counsel and related enforcement tools in that amendment was “unacceptable from the task force and the court side of things,” and he identified other issues such as elimination of immunity for a part‑time review board and deletion of confidentiality and disclosure standards for disciplinary hearings.

Scott, executive director of Guardian Protective Services, described the amendment as an attempt to “meld” training and accountability functions into a single model and said stakeholders statewide had pressed for stronger training and oversight because guardianship cases are increasingly complex. Scott told the committee some states that moved oversight into a centralized board later encountered problems — for example, he said Washington saw many professional guardians withdraw and the state assume guardian duties for some clients — and suggested North Dakota should balance accountability with operational feasibility.

Michael Olsen, an attorney at North Dakota Protection & Advocacy (P&A) and a task force member, said his organization has concerns about P&A administering the office because of federal rules governing Protection & Advocacy programs. He offered to submit written testimony clarifying technical and legal limits on P&A taking that role.

Committee members pressed for specifics on structure and staffing. Garrett Voigt outlined the task force membership (he said 19 total members served on the task force with about 14 active members currently and named participants including Cynthia Phelan as chair, John Alm of the Department of Health and Human Services, Scott Bernstein of GAPS, Judge Brady, and representatives from Catholic Charities, Sanford South Clinic and the Protection & Advocacy Project). He said the task force first met in November 2023 and that the draft bill had been workshopped through the interim government finance committee prior to this session.

On staffing and budget, Voigt said the proposal contemplates four new FTEs housed in the Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship: a director, a monitor/education program manager to expand monitoring and support, an accountant to handle program finances and disbursements, and possibly a paralegal to assist investigation counsel (the paralegal’s inclusion varied between drafts). He estimated program funds in the neighborhood of “13 to 15 to $17,000,000” for operations and payments to professional or public guardians and said the FTEs’ inclusion is currently conditional within the judicial branch budget.

While several committee members suggested some oversight and licensing functions might fit better under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) because DHHS already delivers many social services to people who are subject to guardianship, Voigt and other witnesses said DHHS previously declined to house the office due to overlapping roles and potential conflicts. Voigt added the task force had considered multiple placement options before recommending the court-centered model, though he acknowledged some members might prefer other placements and that the subcommittee should “check our work.”

Subcommittee members asked the panel to produce a written summary of technical concerns in the Senator Lee amendment so members could vet and polish changes before any floor action. Chairman Freilich said the subcommittee will schedule another meeting and adjourned the hearing.

Ending: The subcommittee did not take any formal votes at the hearing. Lawmakers requested written summaries of technical concerns and additional information on agency fit, budget and the conditional nature of proposed FTEs before deciding whether to adopt an amendment and where the new office should be housed.