Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Supported Decision Making topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates supported decision-making bill; asks for more analysis
Summary
Advisory council members discussed a proposed supported decision-making measure, with several members urging caution about implementation details, language that could be read as replacing guardianship, and the need for model agreements and protections.
Members of the Department of Developmental Services advisory council discussed a proposed supported decision-making approach during the meeting and agreed to continue the conversation at a future meeting to allow deeper review.
During the discussion, council members voiced support for the concept of supported decision-making as an additional option for some adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), but several raised questions about how it would be implemented in statute and practice. Council member Phyllis Simmer, an occupational therapist, asked how the law would ensure that an individual actually obtains the group of supporters the statute anticipates and asked where safeguards and oversight would sit. She said, “it doesn't say how the individual is going to obtain that group of people.”
Council member Michael Bellhop described supported decision-making agreements as an alternative to guardianship that lets an individual identify people who can gather information and help them make decisions while the individual retains legal authority. He added that implementation questions — whether a standard form will be used, whether attorneys must draft agreements, and how agencies will recognize the agreements — remain unresolved in the material the council received.
Several members said draft language in the materials used the phrase “in lieu of,” which caused concern because it could be read as replacing guardianship wholesale. Council member Faye Lenz noted the need to clarify that supported decision-making should be another option, not a removal of guardianship where guardianship is appropriate.
The council asked for further analysis and clarification of statutory language and implementation mechanisms (for example, model agreement forms and how agencies would accept them). Chair Patty Silva said the topic should continue at the next meeting to allow time for the coalition and subject-matter experts to provide precise statutory text and an implementation plan.
No formal action was taken; the council deferred a decision and scheduled continued review.
