The Judiciary subcommittee on Senate Bill 2029 met to discuss a proposal to centralize guardianship and conservatorship programs under a single administrative office, with supporters and stakeholders urging clarity on funding, definitions and legal protections.

Senator Paulson, chair of the subcommittee, opened the meeting and invited witnesses and stakeholders to describe how the consolidation would affect current programs and contracts. Christopher Dodson of the North Dakota Catholic Conference said Catholic Charities operates two guardianship programs and warned that pooling funds could affect existing grants and contracts. "We have 2 guardianship programs at Catholic Charities," Dodson said, adding that one program is an older federal/state-funded grant and another is a more recent county/indigent contract.

Sally Halawa, state court administrator, described the bill’s structure and history. "We've been working toward this for almost 14 years," Halawa said, recounting a long-running effort to create a single entity that could oversee guardianship services. She outlined the bill’s model: a commission under the Supreme Court with an administrative office to manage payments, a volunteer operations board to vet policies, and a complaint-review process that would screen and pursue meritorious complaints.

Commenters and some senators pressed the panel on specific wording and risks in the draft. An attendee identified in the record as Trevor Van Natt, speaking about developmental disability (DD) guardianship, said the DD guardianship program is "massively underfunded" and urged consistent requirements across programs to reduce paperwork and improve transparency.

Members raised technical concerns in the draft: one committee member highlighted wording that uses the combined phrase "guardianship and conservatory services" without defining it; another noted the bill at one point refers to "public services" without defining "eligible individuals." The subcommittee member warned that, as currently written, some sections could be read so broadly as to require any entity providing government-funded services to be a licensed guardian or conservator — an outcome the member said was not intended by authors of the bill.

Panelists also discussed where the new office should be housed. Halawa said the bill models the commission on the Judicial Conduct Commission and would place the office administratively within the Supreme Court budget while maintaining arms-length oversight of district courts. Committee members asked whether the Department of Human Services (DHS) could instead host the entity; Halawa and other staff said either placement would likely require similar new staff and functions (program manager, accountant, education/outreach positions) to operate the centralized office.

Legal protections and liability were a recurring concern. Halawa and other speakers traced the history of public administrators and county practices, noting that in 2012 only five counties were appointing public administrators and that immunity for guardians and those who sit on investigation or review boards has been uneven. The subcommittee discussed that, if the service becomes a state entity, typical state-entity immunities would be expected—but that such immunity would require clear legislative language.

On funding and administration, Halawa described an intent to pool existing establishment funds into a single line item and to carry over electronic invoicing and payment systems currently used by counties and service providers. Dodson cautioned that moving funds into the Supreme Court’s appropriation could change how grants and indigent-service contracts are awarded and monitored, and he urged clarity about whether appropriations would be handled through the Supreme Court or remain with DHS/OMB pass-throughs.

The subcommittee identified follow-up steps rather than taking formal action. Members requested that the Windsor-Schmidt report (a prior state study referenced multiple times) be distributed to members and suggested inviting representatives from DHS, agencies that administer DD contracts, recent task-force members, Catholic Charities, county officials and other stakeholders for a future meeting.

Chairman Paulson closed the meeting after asking staff to assemble the referenced materials for review. The subcommittee recessed with directions to schedule additional testimony and review specific draft language and appropriation mechanics before formal consideration of amendments or a committee vote.