Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defender topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Office of State Public Defender seeks statutory cleanup; director testifies bill is non‑substantive
Summary
House Bill 102, an agency request bill from the Office of State Public Defender, would update statutory language to reflect current organizational titles and reallocate administrative duties; director Brett Shandelson told the committee the changes are housekeeping and do not alter substantive duties or client rights.
Representative Jade Soukdis introduced House Bill 102 as an agency bill requested by the Office of State Public Defender (OPD). The bill makes editorial and structural changes to update language and align statutes with the agency’s current organization.
Brett Shandelson, director of OPD, explained the bill removes references to obsolete positions (for example, “deputy” or “chief” public defenders), standardizes the naming of client‑facing divisions (the regional public defenders), and moves certain duty descriptions from repealed sections into central director or central services administrator statutes. “There are no statutory changes to duties, obligations, rights, or any other substantive statutory changes,” Shandelson told the committee, calling the measure “cleanup language” following the 2017 restructuring that replaced a Public Defense Commission with a director model.
Shandelson said the bill also clarifies that the agency is divided into client‑facing divisions (three regional divisions) and a central services division and that statutory language should reflect current operating practice so the agency can manage training, contracts, and central support without tying duties to named personnel.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about conflict and non‑conflict regions (the agency maintains conflict regions to provide counsel where a conflict of interest exists). The sponsor and the director urged the committee that the bill is intended to reduce confusion in statutes and not to change how OPD represents clients.
No opponents testified and the sponsor urged the committee to advance the bill.
