Alaska public-advocacy director says open statutory duties, rising appointments strain guardianship, defense services

Juneau — James Stinson, director of Alaska’s Office of Public Advocacy, told the House Finance Department of Administration Subcommittee on Feb. 19 that the agency’s court‑ordered duties and a recent influx of appointments have created persistent staffing and budget pressures that threaten the agency’s ability to meet its obligations.

"These are statutory and constitutionally mandated. In other words, we don't have a choice but to provide them," Stinson said as he outlined OPA’s responsibilities, which include public guardianships, guardians ad litem and criminal defense for conflict cases.

The issue is both scope and intensity, Stinson said. Public guardianships and conservatorships can last a ward’s lifetime, and guardians ad litem now handle a wider set of matters beyond traditional child‑in‑need‑of‑aid (CHINA) cases. Stinson said Anchorage's non‑attorney guardians ad litem average about 82 active cases, and the Juneau office has roughly 200 open CHINA matters for two non‑attorney GALs — workloads he described as "substantial." He noted a recommended national maximum of about 40 high‑needs wards per guardian.

Stinson warned that oversight investigations and private‑provider retirements are generating additional appointments in some rural communities; he cited about 19 adult‑protective investigations in Nome that may result in cases coming to OPA. "We're trending more and more to the public guardian becoming the last game in town," he said, urging lawmakers to consider the downstream effects of an unlimited appointment scheme.

When asked how courts fit into the picture, Stinson said guardianship is a probate matter decided by superior court judges, and OPA must provide guardianship respondent counsel and other appointed attorneys as part of those proceedings.

On staffing and budget, Stinson said the administration and the Mental Health Trust provided several position control numbers (PCNs) that "bought breathing room," including two Trust‑funded PCNs and several new public guardians in training. He reported OPA now has 33 public‑guardian positions and several recent promotions but said three requested PCNs this session were not enacted: an attorney 5 position (to provide embedded legal counsel) and two administrative positions that would assist travel, procurement and other admin tasks.

"We have an entirely open ended statutory scheme," Stinson said. "There's no mechanism in statute to prevent a case from coming to OPA," a reality he said limits the state's options other than expanding OPA staffing, changing statutes (which he said would generate pushback), or adopting alternatives used in other states, such as caps per guardian and wait lists.

Stinson also described pressure in OPA's criminal conflict work: in‑house defense attorneys are booked into summer and fall trials, contract rates have risen (Stinson said OPA's top contract rate is now $155 an hour), and the governor proposed a $3.3 million multiyear supplemental to address projected shortfalls. He said the office is scrutinizing travel and second‑chair requests to control costs but warned that denying necessary experts risks reversals on appeal.

Representative questions focused on how to stabilize OPA, the status of PCN requests and the administrative burden as shared services end. Stinson reiterated that none of the three requested PCNs had been enacted and that shared‑services changes will shift travel and procurement tasks onto OPA, increasing workload.

Stinson closed by urging caution: training new public guardians takes years, retirements of experienced guardians are imminent, and statutory constraints and court case law limit options to refuse appointments. The subcommittee scheduled a Feb. 26 meeting to approve budget recommendations and close out its work.