Lawmakers consider centralizing guardianship oversight, funding under SB 2029

At a Judiciary subcommittee meeting on Senate Bill 2029, lawmakers, court officials and guardians debated whether to centralize guardianship oversight and payments in a new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship and how to balance stricter accountability with the risk of losing guardians.

The bill would move guardianship-related payments and fiscal oversight under a court-backed office, remove the Association of Counties from the current payment process, and subject the program to state audits. Proponents and witnesses said centralized accounting would make appropriations more transparent; critics warned the measure, as drafted, could be litigatory, administratively heavy and discourage both professional and family guardianship.

Supporters and experts urged accountability but emphasized different approaches. Scott Bernstein, executive director of Guardian and Protective Services, said professional guardians support monitoring but cautioned against an overly litigation-based model: "No guardian that is worth their salt is ever gonna be opposed to guardianship monitoring in some way, shape, or form." Bernstein described technology that some states use to log services and expenditures in near real time, saying such systems "you can monitor us in real time, 24 hours a day. You can tap right in, and you can see where every penny is going." He also warned that overly burdensome rules can push guardians away and noted the state currently has a small pool of professional guardians — "55 on a good day," in his testimony.

Sally Hollub, state court administrator, described the existing patchwork of monitoring and payments and framed the bill as the next step after previous efforts. "The monitoring program that we have now is one person and, she does a great job, but she's very limited," Hollub said, noting prior attempts to require certification led to some guardians withdrawing from service. Hollub gave the committee budget context: "This current biennium over $17,000,000. Next biennium, the request is for $38,000,000," and said that money now flows through multiple channels, which frustrates oversight.

Margo Hout, director of Guardian Angels Incorporated and president of the Guardianship Association of North Dakota (GAND), urged more guardian participation in designing a final approach. "The focus needs to be on less litigation and more structure of the overall expectation of guardians, whether you're a family or a professional," she told the subcommittee and asked time to submit joint, written suggestions from providers.

Committee members pressed for practical fixes. Chairperson Paulson said the panel wants to bring all guardianship funding "into 1 place and to have oversight," but also warned against creating so much administration that direct payments to guardians could shrink. Several senators asked whether the bill's complaint and investigation processes would be timely, citing Minnesota's experience where complaints can take months to reach investigation.

Witnesses and committee members discussed trade-offs: centralized fiscal control and state auditing could increase accountability but will require staff and an implementation period. The bill contains a one-year delay on the complaint mechanism to allow time to build procedures and staffing; witnesses said that delay aims to reduce inadvertent disruption but raises questions about interim handling of complaints and invoices.

No formal vote was recorded at the subcommittee meeting. The panel requested written proposals and suggested collaborative drafting: GAND and other guardians were asked to submit recommended amendments and alternatives to the committee, with multiple members indicating they would like proposed language by the coming Monday so staff could prepare potential amendments, including a draft amendment from Judge Phelan mentioned during the hearing.

The committee also discussed nonlegislative options and technology-based monitoring used in other states, the difficulty of policing family guardians (many of whom operate informally), and past incidents of exploitation and limited prosecution. Committee members emphasized they want a workable solution that increases transparency and accountability without removing guardians needed to provide services.