Gov. Opposes Bill Licensing Conservators

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s office has told a key state court official that it strongly opposes a bill aimed at reforming California’s beleaguered conservatorship system by licensing professionals who care for elderly and infirm adults.

In a closed-door meeting earlier this week, an aide to the governor told the Judicial Council of California that the licensing bill would add another layer of bureaucracy to an already bloated state government, said Daniel Pone, a lawyer who handles legislative issues for the Judicial Council and was at the meeting.

Elder-rights activists, conservators and probate judges say it is too early to tell whether Schwarzenegger is willing to compromise. But all agree that the governor, if he refuses to yield, can stop the effort in its tracks.

“It is a disappointment,” Michelle Williams Court, director of litigation at Bet Tzedek, a legal services agency in Los Angeles, said of the governor’s concerns. “Licensing is a crucial element of reform in this area. It brings statewide standards, it brings accountability, and it gives the courts a much needed tool.”

Professional conservators manage the medical and financial affairs of adults -- most of them elderly -- who are no longer capable of caring for themselves.

The push for licensing 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, the series reported.

Conservators are appointed by probate courts but otherwise face less state regulation than Seeing Eye dog trainers and hairdressers. Anyone without a felony conviction who pays a $385 state registration fee can go into the business.

News that the governor’s office is opposed to the licensing bill was met with dismay from reform proponents, who described this year as the best chance to improve oversight of a system that nearly everyone acknowledges is broken.

“I believe that the time for action is now,” said Don Green, a court commissioner in Contra Costa County who handles conservatorship and other probate matters. “We regulate other businesses and professions because we believe it does some good, and I think that these sick and elderly people in our society who are [under conservatorship] deserve the same kind of protection.”

Pone said that during the recent meeting, a governor’s aide raised concerns that the annual licensing fee -- an estimated $750 a year for each conservator -- could prove prohibitively expensive. More important, he said, the governor’s office objected to establishing another oversight body under the state’s Department of Consumer Affairs to license conservators.

Schwarzenegger has voiced his opposition to state boards and commissions, pledging to reduce their numbers in an effort to streamline government. Toward that goal, two years ago he proposed abolishing 88 boards and commissions but withdrew the plan last year in the face of overwhelming opposition from consumer advocates.

As one possible solution, Pone said, the governor’s aide suggested that the Judicial Council, an arm of the state Supreme Court, take responsibility for some form of licensing or certification of conservators.

In addition to licensing, Pone said that the governor’s office objected to another proposal that would set up an ombudsman’s office to investigate complaints against conservators and had qualms about the cost of court reforms proposed in another of the four conservatorship bills working their way through the Legislature. That bill, written by Assemblyman Dave Jones (D-Sacramento) would increase visits to the elderly by court investigators. The bill’s costs to the court are estimated at $10 million to $22 million a year.

The Judicial Council supports all four reform bills as long as they receive adequate funding.

A spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger declined to discuss the meeting and said his office had yet to take an official position on any of the bills but was willing to work with lawmakers to address any concerns.

Jeff Barbosa, a spokesman for Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), who wrote the licensing bill, said the senator’s staff was in discussions with the governor’s office.

The governor’s support is crucial for all four conservatorship bills. Each includes a provision that requires all of the others to pass for the package to be enacted. If even one was defeated, this year’s push for reform would end.

Since 1988, three attempts to license conservators have ended in failure, with the first vetoed by Gov. George Deukmejian. Eight years later, a proposal to regulate and set professional standards was watered down to require merely that the conservators protect their wards’ dignity, but it was vetoed by Gov. Pete Wilson. In 2000, the Legislature converted an ambitious licensing plan into a $100,000 study of potential regulation. Gov. Gray Davis vetoed it.

Over the same period, the need for better oversight was highlighted in scandals that saw three conservators sent to prison for stealing from their incapacitated clients. A fourth conservator, Anne Chavis, faces charges in Los Angeles County of conspiracy, theft, forgery and perjury. She has pleaded not guilty.

Judith Chinello, a retired conservator and member of a task force set up by the state’s chief justice to recommend ways to improve the conservatorship system, said she has long advocated licensing and felt disheartened that it might not succeed this year.

The state’s roughly 500 professional conservators collectively manage about $1.5 billion in assets.

“They’re handling a large amount of assets, and even more important, they are making life decisions for a lot of vulnerable people,” Chinello said. “Anyone who is doing that should be licensed and should be held to some standard of performance.”