Budget panel cuts funds for conservator oversight

A key legislative committee has stripped the state budget of $17.4 million earmarked for enhancing oversight of court-appointed conservators, but lawmakers pulled back on a threat to suspend reforms designed to protect senior citizens and dependent adults from abuse.

The decision, which was made this week in Sacramento, means that the state’s probate courts will probably have to find money in their own budgets to implement laws passed in 2006 that require more court supervision of people under conservatorships.

The entire Legislature could vote to reinstate the funding, but such a move would be rare. Legislators have been under pressure to close a $15.2-billion deficit in the state’s budget.

Supporters of the reforms said they were disappointed in the cuts but grateful that the reform requirements would not be suspended.

“We staved off the disastrous proposal to suspend the reforms, and I count that as a victory,” said Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), who led the effort to pass the laws two years ago.

Conservators control the care and finances of adults, usually the elderly, whom probate courts deem to be incapable of caring for themselves or managing their own finances.

The reforms were signed into law after a Times series exposed theft, abuse and negligence by some professional conservators appointed to look after senior citizens.

The laws require courts to increase the frequency of investigators’ visits to people under conservatorship; to make their investigations more thorough; and to conduct more intensive checks of conservators’ financial reports that show how they are managing clients’ money.

But the courts have never received money to pay for the new requirements. Last year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed funding intended to help the courts meet the additional costs.

The proposal to cut this year’s funds was passed Tuesday 6 to 0 by the Budget Conference Committee, made up of senators and Assembly members. The committee rejected another proposal to suspend the requirements on the courts for a year.

--

jack.leonard@latimes.com