Senate subcommittee weighs who should run proposed Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Senate Bill 2029 heard testimony on a Supreme Court–drafted amendment and competing proposals for where a proposed Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship should sit in state government.

The Guardianship Association of North Dakota urged the panel to place the office under the governor's authority rather than the judiciary, saying the association's alternative rests "on 3 philosophical pillars of training, monitoring, and accountability," and warning that the bill as written could drive professional and family guardians away. "The future is now," the association's representative said, adding that Family Voices maintains a mailing list of "over 8,700 individuals associated with family guardianship."

The subcommittee heard a line-by-line explanation from Garrick Voigt, staff attorney for the North Dakota Supreme Court, who outlined edits the court system proposes to clarify the bill's scope and operation. Voigt walked the panel through targeted changes the court recommends, including limiting references to "public services" to services administered by the proposed office; adding language to permit an agency to be named on a guardianship; restricting who may advertise guardianship services to licensed guardians or conservators; an explicit exception exempting family guardians from licensing requirements; language allowing the court system to set an internal appeals process rather than statutorily directing appeals to district court; and protections so a single district court cannot place a licensed guardian on a statewide disqualification roster without a more robust revocation process. Voigt also noted an update to the appropriation total on page 10, line 12 (a revised total he described as approximately $18,000,000).

State court administrator Sally (for the record, identified at the hearing as the state court administrator) described the draft structure the court favors as separating administration from adjudication. "With the court system, we have two sides. There's the administrative side that deals with budget and finance and personnel," she said, adding that the court's proposed structure places an independently hired administrator and an appointed operations committee between the judiciary's adjudicative functions and the office's licensing and oversight work. "There's less of a conflict if we can build in an arm's length over there," she said.

Christopher Dodson of the North Dakota Catholic Conference urged caution about timing and continuity of payments for existing programs, warning the panel that organizations dependent on current DHHS and OMB budgets could face interruptions if appropriations and operational transitions are not timed and worded carefully. "My main concern is even if it was ideally set up, it's just not enough time ... we need these programs that are currently in OMB budget and DHSS' budget to continue without interruption," he said.

Senators on the subcommittee pressed for clarity on placement and supervision. Senator Kathy Hogan said the bill's current language reads to her as if the office would be administered by the court rather than freestanding, a reading she said should be addressed in statute. Chairman Paulson said he was not ready to vote and asked the court to draft a single consolidated amendment clarifying the arm's-length safeguards; he also said he planned to consult the governor's office about that branch's willingness to house the proposed office. "I'm not ready to vote anything out today," Paulson said.

Discussion and points that the subcommittee recorded but did not resolve included whether the office should be under the judiciary, the governor, the Department of Human Services, or be established as an independent commission; how to structure appeals and revocation processes; and how to consolidate scattered guardianship-related appropriations located across DHHS, OMB and other budget lines. Witnesses said Catholic Charities North Dakota has administered guardianship-related contracts under the DD division of DHHS for 37 years "without a single surfaced incident of conflict," a fact offered to argue that placement under DHHS has worked in some cases.

The subcommittee took no formal votes. Members requested one consolidated amendment incorporating the court's edits and clearer language about how the office's administration will be kept at arm's length from judicial appointment and adjudication. The panel also asked for an option paper or alternative amendment that would place the office under the governor or create an independent commission so the full committee could compare drafts at a subsequent meeting.

The committee adjourned after scheduling further work on the bill.