Conservator Reform Awaits Capitol Action

With Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Democratic challenger, Phil Angelides, on record in favor of reforming California’s beleaguered conservatorship system, lawmakers in Sacramento have a week to resolve their differences over licensing and hammer out a final overhaul package.

Democratic legislators want beefed-up court oversight of incapacitated adults under conservatorship and insist that licensing is needed for professional conservators, who are currently subject to less regulation than hairdressers or guide-dog trainers.

But some Republican lawmakers fear that the price for such increased oversight is too high and question whether a state licensing program could impede the growth of for-profit caretakers needed to care for rapidly rising numbers of elderly Californians.

In private talks, Schwarzenegger’s aides have raised concerns about the licensing proposal. But a spokesman insisted that the governor is committed to protecting seniors and the disabled from conservatorship abuse and is weighing the legislation on its merits.

“He believes that there have been abuses in the system and that it’s his responsibility as governor to look at what options are available to ensure their safety,” said Adam Mendelsohn, the governor’s communications director. “There is a desire to find a compromise on this important legislation.”

Angelides criticized Schwarzenegger this week for his cautious approach to reform and vowed, if elected governor, to sponsor new reforms should Schwarzenegger veto the current legislation.

“What the governor should be doing is pushing the reform, not being dragged along,” he said in an interview with The Times. “There isn’t sufficient effort being devoted to cracking down on abuse to protect the elderly and the frail in California.”

A successful deal could deliver the most far-reaching oversight of professional conservators since the first entrepreneur set up shop more than a quarter century ago. But reform advocates fear that failure to win over the governor could doom the effort for at least several more years.

“This has been an issue that has existed for a long time,” said Michelle Williams Court, director of litigation at Bet Tzedek, a Los Angeles-based legal services agency. “Every year that goes by only worsens the situation.”

California has about 500 professional conservators who are appointed by probate courts to make financial and healthcare decisions for about 4,000 clients, overseeing $1.5 billion in assets.

The need for better oversight was highlighted in a four-part series published by The Times in November that described how some professional conservators were able to strip the elderly and disabled adults of their civil rights without their knowledge or consent.

Some conservators neglected their wards, isolated them from relatives and ran up fees. Overwhelmed probate courts, charged with monitoring conservators’ work, overlooked incompetence, neglect and outright theft, the series reported.

What might happen in Sacramento has grabbed national attention as elder rights groups around the country hope that reform in California might spur change beyond the state.

Lawmakers in Sacramento have until the end of August to forge a compromise and move the reform package through both houses of the Legislature before this year’s session ends.

The package involves four bills, each of which includes a provision requiring all of the others to be signed into law for the package to be enacted.

Two of the bills enjoy broad support. SB 1716 would allow probate courts to investigate informal complaints against conservators rather than wait for a formal legal filing. SB 1116 would make it more difficult for wards to be moved out of their homes by conservators.

The remaining two bills are more far-reaching and face opposition from some Republican lawmakers.

AB 1363, written by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), would give courts the chance to audit the financial reports of conservators and would increase the frequency with which court investigators visit people under conservatorship.

Currently, investigators must visit incapacitated adults a year after a conservator has been appointed and then every two years -- a schedule that some understaffed courts have failed to meet. Jones’ bill would require investigators to visit six months after a conservator was appointed and then every year thereafter.

The bill would also make it harder for conservators to gain control of the lives and finances of the elderly on an emergency basis -- often without their knowledge -- by claiming that they are in imminent danger. Under the bill, court investigators would have to visit adults before or within two days of an emergency appointment.

“That is very important,” said Casey Young, a lobbyist in Sacramento for the California chapter of AARP. “This is the bill that does the hard things, that tries to increase the monitoring.”

The Judicial Council of California, which sets policy for courts statewide, backs the plan if it is funded, but no money has been included in the current budget for the courts to meet the proposed requirements. The council estimated the cost to state courts at $9.9 million to $17.5 million a year.

Young suggested that Jones could reduce fiscal concerns by eliminating one of the more expensive parts of his bill: the creation of self-help centers by the courts to offer assistance to people who are appointed as conservators for their relatives or friends. That would save an estimated $3.3 million to $7.2 million a year.

Another option would be to push back the bill’s enactment to July 2007, enabling state courts to seek more money to fund the measure in next year’s budget.

SB 1550, written by Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), would set up a licensing board with the power to investigate complaints as well as decertify and fine abusive professionals. The board would consist of seven members -- three professional conservators and four members of the public, including a court investigator and an elder rights advocate working for a nonprofit agency.

Consumer advocates say such boards offer the public an important opportunity to keep tabs on regulated professions, because they are subject to state open-meeting laws.

But Schwarzenegger in the past has criticized such boards as bloated bureaucracy and advocated their replacement with bureaus, run by civil servants accountable to him.

Assemblywoman Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster) said she supports increasing court oversight of conservators but opposes licensure.

“Usually a new bureaucracy makes things worse and not better,” she said. “I think in every organization there’s some bad apples. I think we need to effectively take care of the bad guys and let the good guys do what they do well.”