Conservator Reform Faces a Tough Road

Despite backing from the state’s courts and a dozen elder rights groups concerned about the neglect and abuse of senior citizens, legislation to overhaul California’s troubled conservatorship system faces an uncertain future.

Inching its way through the state Legislature is a package of four bills designed to beef up oversight of professional conservators who manage the lives and finances of incapacitated adults for profit.

The call for reform has won backing even from conservators while drawing little opposition.

Yet supporters have so far failed to persuade either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or senior Democratic and Republican legislators to add money for the new initiatives to next year’s budget.

By the most recent estimates, the cost of implementing the package of bills could exceed $25 million. Funding looks increasingly unlikely.

Some Republicans have expressed skepticism about the value of more regulation through the licensing of professional conservators. Others have suggested waiting for recommendations from a state task force studying court oversight of conservatorships. And Schwarzenegger has yet to indicate whether he would sign legislation.

The tough road for backers of reform underscores the complicated task of fixing what nearly everyone agrees is a broken system. Elected state officials are wary of regulating emerging professions. Since 1988, three attempts to license professional conservators have failed.

Nevertheless, backers said they remain optimistic.

“It’s hard to identify any other issue of greater importance to seniors and dependent adults than this one,” said Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), who is spearheading the legislative efforts.

The push for reform followed a four-part series published by The Times in November that described how some conservators neglected their wards, isolated them from relatives and ran up fees. Probate courts, charged with monitoring conservators’ work, overlooked incompetence, neglect and outright theft.

About 500 professional conservators operate in the state, caring for at least 4,600 people and managing $1.5 billion.

Among the bills under review is SB 1550 by state Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont) that would license conservators, currently subject to less regulation than hairdressers and Seeing Eye dog trainers.

Sponsored by the trade group that represents conservators, the bill would create a licensing board under the Department of Consumer Affairs to administer professional exams and discipline professionals who ran afoul of ethical guidelines. Serious violations could result in conservators losing their licenses.

Figueroa told lawmakers at a meeting of the Assembly Judiciary Committee last week that such regulation is essential.

“Too many seniors are being abused,” she said.

Republicans on the committee said the plan should address judicial weaknesses rather than requiring conservators to get a license.

“The problem is the local courts not doing their jobs,” said Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta), an attorney who said he has handled some conservatorship cases. “This is the wrong solution.”

Committee members voted 6-3 along party lines to approve the legislation, which must pass the Assembly Appropriations Committee before it is voted on by the Assembly and Senate.

The most far-reaching of the reform bills is AB 1363, dubbed the conservatorship omnibus bill. Written by Jones, the bill would require court investigators to visit seniors more frequently and would create a state ombudsman’s office.

It also would require county public guardian offices to intervene if adults were in imminent danger. Though established to act as the caretaker of last resort for the indigent, the Los Angeles County public guardian turned away four of every five people referred to it, The Times found. The agency often took months to act, and hundreds of seniors died while on its waiting list.

“We see [the Jones bill] as absolutely necessary ... in order to fully protect California’s most vulnerable consumers,” said Michelle Williams Court, director of litigation at Bet Tzedek Legal Services, a Los Angeles legal aid agency.

Last week, Jones scored a major victory by securing the support of the state’s Judicial Council, which sets court policy statewide and decides whether to support or oppose bills that affect the courts. Staff analysts with the Senate Judiciary Committee had questioned several parts of the bill, noting Judicial Council concerns. But after amendments approved by Jones and the Judicial Council, committee Chairman Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) said he would support it in a key vote of the committee scheduled Tuesday.

Still, Daniel Pone, an attorney who handles legislative issues for the Judicial Council, said he is wary of the bill’s lack of funding. Before last week’s amendments, his agency had estimated the cost of the bill for the courts alone at around $25 million. The amendments will probably reduce that figure.

The cost of licensing would be covered by fees paid by conservators.

“We have a package of bills that make sense,” Pone said. “That is good policy. But we need to have the money to do it or it will only exacerbate the existing problems.”

Counties also would have to pick up the cost of the extra cases that the public guardian’s offices would have to handle if the bill were to become law. At least one, Orange County, has opposed the measure, citing increased costs.

“Implementing such changes would require funding that, so far, I have not seen the state commit to doing,” said Christopher Fierro, deputy director of the Los Angeles County public guardian’s office. His office estimates that the proposed changes could increase the number of new cases it takes annually from about 100 to more than 500, costing the county at least $1 million a year.

Supporters note that the funding necessary to fully implement the conservatorship reforms is a small fraction of the state’s $131.1-billion budget.

But even though the state is flush with cash this year thanks to an unexpected surge in tax receipts, legislators and the governor have said they are determined to show fiscal restraint.

They have vowed to use the new money almost exclusively to pay down bonds and return money borrowed from schools in leaner times.

With the state still projected to spend more than it takes in next year, anything that puts California further in the hole is a tough sell.

Jones said that he has not given up hope of adding money to the bill, but that his priority is working out what policies will best protect elders and then winning votes to make them law.

Funding, he said, could be added to the budget later or next year.

“I think we should get the policy right and then figure out how to pay for it,” he said.

Jones and Figueroa have linked the fate of their legislation to two other conservatorship bills. SB 1716 would make it easier for judges to investigate complaints from people who are not involved in litigation in their courts. SB 1116 would make it harder for conservators to move seniors from their homes and sell their property.

The strategy of joining the bills as one package is a gamble. Each bill includes a provision that requires all of the others to pass for the package to be enacted. If one were defeated, the entire push for reform would end this year.

Democratic leaders in the Assembly and Senate have pledged support. But even if the bills won the necessary majority in each chamber, they still would need the governor’s signature.

A spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger said that his office would not comment on pending legislation and that the governor has not spoken publicly about whether he supports reform.

If Republican opposition to the bills is strong, Schwarzenegger could face pressure not to sign the legislation.

But reform advocates hope that the governor will find it difficult to deliver a veto during an election year when public awareness of conservator abuse is still fresh.

*

Times staff writer Evan Halper contributed to this report.