Let's call this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee
to order.
It is 1.30 PM Friday, February 6, 2026.
Before we begin, I want to thank Julianna Singh,
the senate judiciary secretary, who
makes sure we have a transcript of our meetings,
and Doug Bridges from the Juneau, LIO,
who makes for we sound.
At this time, we want remind community members and all
those in the room to please silence your cell phones.
President's Day, We have Senator Tilton, Senator Steven,
Senator Tobin, my vice chair, senator Keel.
And myself, Senator Klayman, we have a quorum to connect business.
We are all here.
The first and only item on our agenda today is Senate Bill 190 Uniform Act
guardianship conservatorship sponsored by Senator Keel.
This is the second hearing of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
But the first hearing from the Bill this year, here to present the bills Senator
Keeling and his staff.
We're a howl, available for questions, no a climb from Alaska court system.
Senator Keel and how if you would please come forward put yourselves on the record and you may begin your presentation
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the Record
My name is Jesse Keill and I have the privilege of representing Senate District B
My Name is Aurora Hawk and i have The privilege Of
representing senator keel
The privilege is mine, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for taking time with just a simple little bill this afternoon
Senate bill 190
is
Does adopt an update Alaska's laws for guardianship and conservatorship
Based on the most recent uniform law by the National Uniform Law Commission
Guardianships and Conservatorships are legal protective arrangements
They are designed to protect Alaskans
who are not able to meet some of their basic needs
for their own health, their safety, or their self-care.
It's a serious matter.
These arrangements, they are protective.
That's what they're for.
They're also a restriction of a person's liberty.
And so it's incumbent on us as legislators
to make sure that we have a good framework in place
for balancing that carefully.
Someone else, whether a family member, a private guardian, or a public guardian or conservator,
takes on some of those responsibilities for a person's financial or physical well-being.
And so it's really important that our laws maintain that individual's human dignity and rights
in the least restrictive way possible to serve their best interests.
Alaska's current laws do an okay job with that.
Alaska Courts can grant full or limited guardianship or conservatorship, and the law allows for
certain less restrictive options. But it is not well-built for nuance.
And the more recent versions of this uniform law from the Uniform Law Commission, I think
do it better and will allow Alaska courts the opportunity to do a better job.
It is often described as sort of a three-position switch.
You're on your own.
You have a conservator who takes care of your money,
or you have guardian who makes all your decisions for you
from a legal standpoint.
Again, that's an oversimplification.
The goal is to allow courts a much more nuanced approach.
Alaska's laws are rooted in a uniform law
version from the 1980s.
A lot has changed since then, and we understand more about the people who are subject to some
of these protective arrangements.
So this version came from an interdisciplinary group of folks who were involved with guardianship
and conservatorship who advocate for people protected by those arrangements, it's called
But they have worked very hard to review this model and to tailor it for Alaska.
Beth Russo, who is with AARP's National Governmental Affairs Section, will be able to talk in some
more detail about that, just a little later on this afternoon.
So what does Senate Bill 190 do?
It increases transparency and it increases notice.
So, nobody gets caught by surprise.
It recognizes that people who need this kind of help really are on a spectrum.
It shifts the focus of what happens in court from testing whether a person is incapacitated
to looking at their specific needs and their specifics abilities.
It clarifies the roles of everyone involved in the process.
It limits, and I think this is important to me, it limits the length of emergency guardianships,
which today can be unlimited, under the bill an emergency guardian ship can
be granted for 60 days, that can renewed once.
It also updates Mr. Chairman some archaic terminology, frankly some of the terms in our laws for
then the respectful language that we try and use for Alaskans today.
So the bill is fairly narrowly focused on the court process for granting these kinds of protective arrangements.
We don't get into child in need of aid laws.
We do not get in to how we license guardians, those laws we leave alone in this bill.
I am certainly committed to working with all of you on the committee and interested Alaskans
to fine-tune the bill in whatever ways we think it needs so that we can accomplish
the goal of improving our system and improving the lives of Alascans who need these protections.
With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn to my staff or a hawk to orient the
committee a little more specifically to the Bill.
Sounds good.
Thank you.
for the record of Rora Hawk.
Okay, so section one, a man's uncle.
Okay.
So you have before you a 17 page sectional analysis
and I wanted to note that in the sectionals analysis
the main page that you see,
you'll also see that it starts on section 66.
We'll get back to one through 65
at the end of the Sectional.
puts the four different types of protective arrangements
that are in this legislation side by side
and walks you through the process for granting them.
And so you will see that some
sections are substantially similar
and some are slightly different.
for instance the very first one is the basis for appointment and this is an important section
because it shifts the focus of the determination from determining that somebody is incapacitated
to looking at their actual needs and abilities and what would be best suited for them. In addition
guardianships for minors and then the legislation goes through who may petition
the court for a guardianship or conservatorship, or another protective
arrangement, who must be noticed and and who who needs official service and
It goes through the role of the court visitor in determining and investigating and the needs
of individual and notes when an attorney should be appointed upon the individual's request
or if it's recommended by the Court Visitor if an adult requests it also a professional
is required, and then it lists who is, should be at the hearing unless accepted by the court,
who can be of the Hearing, has the right to be a hearing,
and any other individuals who are interested may petition to participate.
And where more than one guardian or conservator is nominated by any of the parties,
there's an order of prioritization to determine who should be considered to be the guardian
or conservative first.
And then after the court has gone through this process, they order the appointment or
And that must also be noticed.
We also have a section in each for emergency appointments,
except for under the other protective arrangements,
which are not appointing a guardian or conservator.
So that that section is not in there.
The emergency appointment, as Senator Keel said,
are limited to 60 days and may not,
may only be renewed once.
There's also noticing requirements for that.
and an additional hearing if the emergency appointment
is made without notice and without a hearing.
Then it lists the powers of a guardian of minor
or the power of guardian an adult
and the Power of Conservator outlines
what must be in the plan that must
be filed for the care of the individual.
and the report that must be made annually also has a list of things that
must being included in that report and that the
report must
be noticed to the individual as well. Finally a guardian or conservator can
their diligence or to fulfill their duties and that can be done by petition or on the court order.
There are a process for terminating a guardianship as well. For instance,
once a minor becomes an adult or becomes emancipated, they no longer need a guardian.
Starting on page nine of the sectional,
you've got the specific statutes that apply
to that particular category of protective arrangement.
For instance, a standby guardian for a minor,
but he nominated by the parent to,
Something happens and there is need of a standby guardian. There's a process for appointing that person
The conservatorship obviously has a lot more special
Special actions because they're dealing with financial transactions, and so there's lot of guidance on that
And
If we move on to Article 5, that is starting on the sectional on page 12,
that's your forms section. Article 6 is miscellaneous provisions
that have to do with how this interacts with other states and federal.
And then you have general provisions that determine things like how to
transfer proceedings from one jurisdiction to another or determine which
venue has priority if if a case is in more than one place. And then finally the
rest of the bill starts on page 17 the last page of be of sectional and it
update terminology or change references to the statute and there's a lot of them
because this concept arises in statute a
lot. Also you have section 101 which is your big repealer section that
repeals the current law that is being replaced by this chapter along with
You have sections 102 and 103 that
require court rule
Change indirect court real change and so the bill will require two-thirds vote of each house
in section 108 in addition you have section stealing with
anything that starts after the effective date of this law
moves forward and if anything
that is already in place
remains in-place under the previous
law until something changes.
And I also would like to correct for the record a statement that I made
in the last hearing last year.
I've done a little bit more research and I have more nuance
to the 19 states that have passed.
The uniform law is actually any of the uniform laws and then
and also parts of this current law
because certain states were looking
for better sections on conservatorship
and so they just pulled the conservator ship.
So and have a map that I just finished
So, just for clarity, that's 19 states that have adopted some or all of the guardianship
law as opposed to 19 States that if you adopted
some uniform law of which there may be hundreds.
Correct.
Correct, yeah, and not all
of them have adapted this version of uniform
law.
Senator Colvin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions that are unrelated, so I'm going to start with my first,
I forgive me, as I don't know how these two sections interact, so hopefully you might be able to unpack.
But I'm particularly looking at page 38, I know it's in other sections of the bill, around emergency guardian for minors.
And I am curious how this might work with the OCS system, or if a child,
if some dynamic of some child who is in crisis might need someone to step in to help make determinations or
decisions while something else is going about.
And I'm unclear of how those kind of two systems interact with one another I
Will I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that a child in need of aid proceeding takes
precedence
And so I mr. Chairman in answer to senator Tobin just a little further
We're really going to see a child in need of aid cases
when there is a physically unsafe situation, right?
A parent who is unable or a parent
who has alleged to be doing harm to the child.
These emergency guardianships arise in a situation
where we don't have the state needing
to immediately take a Child out of a home as a war.
The old term is war of the State.
They should cover different situations.
There is.
Yes.
Oh.
There's also.
Not yet.
In section 1329-425 on page 128 to 129 that deals with the venue when there is already a child in need of aid preceding happening.
With the pages of those.
128 through 129.
in its section 425.
Senator Tobin.
Thank you, thank you Mr. Chairman and that's helpful and we'll follow up with you a little bit more as I'm just curious and the
Dynamic I think of is when you might have divorce proceedings or some sort of a state
Dynamic where the child might need someone to speak for them in a legal construct or they might
need to additional support that is outside of the purview of maybe their guardians or
Potentially their parents. My second question to you is starting on page 50
And there's another section on Page 77 around the priority of conservator and guardian and I'm curious why spouse of
The spouse of the, oh goodness, now I'm going to get wrong.
But the spouse is listed so late.
And I think particularly in terms of my father,
if there was a need for him to have an emergency guardian
or conservator and I am unable,
he would be the next most knowledgeable
or competent person to step in.
And i'm unclear of why the spouses listed
so far below the other folks.
Through the chair Aurora Hawk, I believe that might be a question for either the
Uniform Law Commission or our invited testifier
and if and so we can follow up with that
In terms of invited testimony test of her do you mean Beth Russo? Correct
Why don't we go to Beth Ruseau right now to see if she can answer that question because she's here with us
Not in the room, but Ms. Russo
Did you hear the question from Senator Tobin?
Yes, Chair Kleinman. Thank you
Senator Toby my
Understanding and I would defer if there is going to be testimony further on from the uniform law commission. I'll certainly
Defer to them because I was not part of this drafting committee,
but the idea behind the priority I
Just had the priorities in front of me and okay. Excuse me. Um, is that the the
priority is either somebody who's already been appointed as a guardian or
conservator for the individual and then it's somebody
who has been nominated by the by
the individuals under a power of attorney. So hopefully if somebody has
probably nominated their spouse as the person to be their guardian or conservator or an agent,
and then it's the spouse. So the idea is that really trying to put emphasis on looking at the
powers of attorney that have already been executed or the guardianships that are already in place,
the courts made the determination that nothing like that exists, then it is the spouse.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you. That is very helpful to know and I think it's again a good
reminder for the public. Hopefully everyone who is listening is thinking about creating their
own durable health proxies, their own living wills, and also their their last will and testament
because these are very critical documents to have even when you're as young as I.
All right, that wasn't a question.
And I will note, Ms. Russo,
that the New Horned Law Commission
is not on the line today, you're our best expert today.
All all right.
Other questions from the committee?
I have a follow-up question with regard to
child in need of aid proceedings
versus guardianship proceedings.
I mean in general broad terms of child naive aid proceeding is somebody that
The state is essentially taking custody of the child whether for a long-term or a short- term
There's a the state as intervening and becoming at some in some framework sort of apparent for our period
whereas a guardianship proceeding has
more often arises outside of a place in which they're finding that
The child can't be taken care of and there's kind of an emergency
Guardianship is more seems one hopes is a more planned out
Am I
It what Senator Keeler miss Hawk is that?
Consistent with your understanding. Are am I missing the boat on that
Mr. Chairman, I think that is
That's very well put and I would only add an additional nuance that our child in need of aid laws are
geared toward first reunifying the family making the home a safe place and so
when we look to the longer-term solutions of a guardianship.
That's usually, as I say, in that different context,
it should be in a non-emergent situation, most of the time.
All right, I do not see any other questions
from the committee.
Senator Tobin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a question about the fiscal note. Will we have folks here from the court system?
And I see from statewide services to answer questions related to the particular documents.
We certainly have somebody from The Court System here to to ask your questions about that court systems
fiscal no, mr. Clyde
And
I don't think we had anybody online
That's it, the only person here today is Mr. Klein.
Senator Tobin.
Thank you, thank you Mr Chairman.
And hello Mr Klein, it's good to see you.
I'm looking at the court system's fiscal note.
And I am curious as it indicated that you would need a part time.
attorney, and I'm assuming this particular attorney that you would be seeking to hire would need to be well-versed in
guardianships and certifications and just curious about the the timeline on hiring that person.
I know that we here in the state of Alaska are struggling a bit with finding talented and competent folks to do some of the critical work that
We need and so just interested is if this bill went into effect tomorrow. What do you think the time line horizon would
be?
Through the chair to senator tobin thank you for the question
We would imagine, tell us who you are, even though I told you.
Just hold us, who are.
Excuse me, rookie mistake for the record, my name is Noah Klein, I'm Associate Counsel for
the Alaska Court System.
Thank you, Senator Tobin, for
the question.
We
would
imagine.
three months maximum to hire an attorney, one thing we could potentially do
in a situation where we needed help with rules or we need to help
with forms, we have a rules attorney employed by the court
system. We also have the forms attorney
employed, by court system, they're both incredibly busy positions,
but to the extent any expertise was necessary,
we couldn't potentially put the more senior attorneys we already have employed
doing the work on this bill and hire someone to
help them with their day-to-day duties as assigned.
And just on that, would this be somebody that you'd be hiring a private attorney to be a contractor with the court system?
Or would you be hire somebody as a court employee for a period?
To the chair, again, this is no decline with a Court system.
We would be hiring an employee, so this, what our fiscal note shows is for
a benefited position for six months.
Other questions?
All right
Then before we go
We do have Ms. Russo. I believe is here to provide invited testimony and and so Ms
Russo would you like to proceed with your testimony?
Yes, thank you chair claiming and
Committee members for this opportunity
to provide testimony on SB 190,
the Uniform Guardianship Conservatorship
and Other Protective Arrangements Act.
My name is Beth Russo,
and I am a government affairs director for AARP
and its national office.
I advise AARP state offices across the country
on issues related to elder justice,
including guardianships and conservatorships.
As you may know, I spent much of my career in Alaska and served as the head of the public
guardians for a number of years and then as deputy director, excuse me, deputy, director
of The Office of Public Advocacy. When I lived in Alaskan,
I was active with the Wings Group. That's the working interdisciplinary network
that group formed as the result of a grant from the administration on community living.
And it is a group that convened through the court system.
It was a grandpa.
went through the court system and involved various community stakeholders and guardianship
cases including representatives from AARP, the Hospitals Office of Public Advocacy,
the Attorney General's Office, I believe the Social Security Office was invited member.
So it was really a private professional guardians were also on the Wings Committee.
And so it really is quite the stakeholder working group.
One of the subcommittees that Wings had was the statutory subcommittee.
And that was under the leadership of Theresa Holt, AARP State Director.
That committee compared Alaska's current guardianship laws with the Uniform Act,
for short, and it made recommendations regarding the adoption of Yucopa to the larger group.
Those recommendations were adopted by the Larger Group and found their champion with Senator Keel.
So before I go into
discussing some more of the differences between the current law and what is proposed in SB 190.
I just wanted to take a few moments to talk about guardianships in general and for purposes
of my testimony today I'm going to be referring to guardianship for both guardianships and conservatorships.
When talked about individually guardianship steel with decisions about the person such
as medical decisions, housing, vocational decisions and conservatorship
steel, with decision about money and legal matters. Full guardianships and
Current guardianship system in this country has its roots in feudalism. I think that's sort of helpful to understand how
how everybody is at play here. It's the idea that the Lord of the Manor is taking care of his
subjects. So when a court appoints a guardian for a person, it's exercising the state's parent's
patreon authority. The court is appointing someone to make decisions on its behalf for
a persons who can't make their own decisions. And this appointment may be for some specific
A full guardian is someone who can make decisions for a person
about what kind of medical care to receive, where they can live, what education or vocational
opportunities should be explored. They can made decisions about how and where the person's money is spent.
So
Guardianships are put in place to protect individuals, but they are also designed to maximize a person's independence
to help them operate in the world as if they did not have the limitations that caused them to lack the ability to make decisions.
So appointing a guardian is one of the most invasive actions the state can take in lives of its citizens.
And so we really want to make sure that individuals receive full due process of the law both before and during the lifetime of their case.
Alaska's current guardianship laws, as referred to earlier, are based on an earlier version of uniform probate code.
But they can do better.
They can be better, that's where UCOPA comes in.
is already in Alaska statute and expands it to better protect the rights of vulnerable individuals
who are subject to these types of proceedings.
Full guard, excuse me, full guardianship should always be the last resort.
courts should try and find less restrictive alternatives. However, that doesn't always happen.
So Yucopa's language makes it clear that full guardianship should be the last resort by prohibiting
a court from ordering one if a limited guardianships protective arrangement or other less restrictive
It requires petitioners to explain why limited guardianships or protective arrangements are not sufficient
and it adds an entirely new section to Alaska's
guardianship statutes, which is the other protective arrangement portion of this law.
I'll just go through and highlight a couple of the
differences and
Article 1 of Yucopa, that is the minor guardianship section.
Currently, there's very little reporting done in cases.
involving minors by the guardians.
Guardians and conservators of minors
have the same fiduciary responsibilities
as guardians and conservatives of adults.
The court has the seem duty to protect
the interest of liners as it does for vulnerable adults,
and Yucopa makes that duty clear by highlighting,
reporting and notice requirements in this section.
It adds court visitors to certain minor guardianship cases
and provides counsel to children ages 12 and older
if their guardian, excuse me,
if they are their Guardian Ed Lightham request.
Yucopa does away with testimony
and Terry guardianships that don't require court approval.
Under Yacopa, the court is expected to appoint
the person nominated by a parent.
unless, for some reason, that's not in the child's best interest.
But Yucopa makes it clear that the court should be involved with all guardianship appointments.
In Article II, the most news-
Ms. Riesz, before you get Article I, just one question.
In contrast to the current law, does the Uniform Act, if adopted,
broader range of options about the level of guardianship.
I know there's full guardianships, which as you say,
is one of the more invasive, but does the uniform act
that we're considering actually give the court
more diversity of option in terms of how much
of a guardians ship to order compared to the president?
Sure.
Yes, I think it does, it really, that really comes
other protective arrangements act, but even within the guardianship section, the Yucopa
makes it clear that limited guardians, and it can be limited for specific purposes,
limited-for-specific time frames, it's the emphasis within this bill really is on limiting
appointing a full guardian for the next 50 or 60 years of a person's life.
Thank you.
And so just going on into that article two section on guardianships,
in the form of more robust requirements for petitions, notices, and reports.
And similarly to the minor guardianship statute, there's no longer an ability under
Yucopa to have a testamentary guardianships for an adult. Another major change is the nomenclature
surrounding emergency appointments. Currently in Alaska law, they're referred to as temporary
temporary to emergency making it clear that these types of appointments are truly for exceptional
circumstance and of a limited duration as current law does not actually have any kind of statutory
limit on the length of temporary appointments. Yucopa also greatly expands the requirements
that are listed under a guardianship plan and the idea of guardianships plan is that's the guardian
What what there are it is what it sounds like it
Is it's what the what? The guardians plan is to help the individual to protect them and also to
Help them maximize their independence and so
Some of this information used to be in the implementation report
But Yucopa shifts it to the plan with the idea that a guardianship plan
Is being submitted to The Court and can be refined over time so that
As a person's needs change over the course of their life and over
the Course of the Guardianship, the plan will also change.
Many and then the next section is the conservatorship statute.
Many of portion many of
the changes discussed above.
uh before with regards to guardianships are mirrored in the section on conservatorships.
The bill greatly expands notice provisions and iterates that the basis for conservator
ship is a functional one and not merely because somebody has a particular diagnosis or status.
What I think personally is the most innovative part of Yucopa because what it does is it allows
individuals to petition the court for protective arrangement that's not a guardianship or conservatorship,
and it also allows the courts to convert petitions for guardianships or
conservator ships into petitions, for other protective arrangements. It specifically allows
the Courts to fashion orders that are somewhere between limited guardianships and conservaterships
full guardianships and single transactions.
It allows judges and parties to be creative, basically,
in coming up with a personalized solution that
can help a vulnerable adult best maximize their independence
while keeping them safe.
Article 4 also contains the general provisions and updates
that affect all protective proceedings.
One of the problems individuals sometimes have with these cases.
If it's a lay person trying to be involved with
these case is knowing where to find information related to each type of
proceeding. Mr. So we're going to take a brief
head ease because we are having some audio issues.
Briefed ease.
icon rec. Please proceed. Thank you. Article four contains general provisions and so it's one of
the issues has been when laypeople are trying to work their way through the statutes is that they
Sometimes an issue is addressed in the general section.
Other times it's addressed
in The Guardianship section, sometimes it can be listed
in both guardianships and conservatorships.
So Yucopa expands the General section so that when it is
possible to address commonalities
in one place it does. For example, venue is currently addressed in AS 1326-137,
216 and 411. SB 190 addresses venue for all proceedings by a single statute in general,
Additionally, as Senator Keel mentioned,
several terms have been updated to reflect how society has grown to recognize the dignity of
all people. Yucopa eliminates the term incapacitated person and instead applies a functional test to
determine if somebody requires the appointment of a guardian. The elements of the functional
test are largely similar to what's currently in the statutory definition of
capacity, but by eliminating that term, Yucopa puts the focus on a person's actual abilities
and needs versus a particular status.
These kinds of changes extend to replacing the term ward with adults or minor subjects
to guardianship.
clarifies the roles of GALs and attorneys
for individuals who have trouble communicating.
Alaska's current statutes can blur the line
sometimes between attorneys who advocate
for a person's expressed interest
and G ALs whose job it is to advocate
for person best interest.
UCOPA anticipates that guardian
and alignment appointments should be used sparingly
and in fact, given Alaska robust use of court visitors,
they should rarely be required.
A new section worthy of note is section 1329480,
which requires the disclosure of certain criminal history
and bankruptcy by potential guardians and conservators.
If adopted, this law would not necessarily preclude individuals with certain backgrounds from serving as a guardian or conservator, but what it does is it helps ensure that a court is making a fully informed choice when appointing someone to a position of trust.
Rather, in the respective articles for each type of case, under Yicopa, hearings in these
cases are presumed to be open, although they can be closed on the respondent's request
and for good cause.
The practice in Alaska has been that hearings are assumed to closed unless the responder
requests for them to open.
However, court records beyond notices and proceedings in dispositional orders will still
be confidential.
Ms. Rocha.
One more question.
You spoke about guardians at Lidham.
And I know the public advocate has a number of guardians on staff.
Are they guardian add items if appointed by the court being appointed in,
say, in a child and evade case?
Are there being a pointed under this guard?
Would they be appointed under the guardianship act or under a different part of statute?
Chairman Clement, this is a different part of it. This would be different guardians add light
and the guardians ad light. Um, Opa has on staff are specifically for child in need of aid cases.
This is would. Be regarding guardians that light and representing adults in guardianship cases,
that it would not necessarily, it's not anticipated to arise as a need if the individual has an
attorney to represent them. What sometimes happens in cases now is that an attorney can be allowed
to convert their appointment to that of a guardian ad later. And this statute would,
Does that mean there's a part in this in his bill that specifically talks about guardian add linings in the non
Child and need to evade context and which where is that in a bill?
German claimant if you can give me just a minute
is in on page 131, section 1329, 470.
It would be the new law section, 13 29, 4, 70, line 30.
131 to 132 is the one place in which there's specific provisions if the court's going to ask to
a point of guarding that item to somebody who's already got a guardian is already subject to a
guardianship. Yes, I believe so. Okay, thank you.
Powers of attorney are not automatically
voided under Yucopa.
They're viewed to work in conjunction
with whatever protective order the court deems necessary.
So if a court wishes to void a power of a attorney,
perhaps it's because the agent is
breaching their fiduciary duties to the individual.
It certainly can, but a Court must
affirmatively take action to do so. So this is just yet another change that highlights the emphasis
the drafters of Yucopa placed on ensuring that guardianships are truly options of last resort.
So just in conclusion I think adopting SB 190 will ensure that Alaskans will
continue to enjoy promoted dignity, autonomy, and safety.
And Alaska will strengthen legal safeguards and court oversight by enacting this.
So again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and
happy to answer any additional questions you may have.
Senator Tobin.
I'm unsure of how familiar you are with Alaska, so I might ask this of the sponsor and Ms. Hock.
But I see here on page 40, there is kind of draft language around attorneys of power in it.
It says they must substantively follow this form, and in there, is reference to a notary.
Interestingly enough, I was just at the Anchorage LIO trying to get a document
His recent deployment and we were told the LIO no longer offers notary services and I'm very curious about
Some of your thoughts or some of you're
It's on 142 it says acknowledgement before me the under sign a notery public
Just your thoughts about how this might be inaccessible or accessible for folks in rural communities,
places where there may not be a notary available, and what the definition substantially or a substantively
follow this type of form might entail.
I do know that although Uniform Code gives us a lot of guidance on what
the language might look like, we do have the ability to Alaska size it or to make it fit for Alaska's unique geographic dynamic.
Through the chair, Aurora Hawk, a staff to Senator Keel,
this is actually a section that the courts have asked us
to ask to remove from the bill,
because they create their forms themselves.
And so, Mr. Klein may be able to speak to whether
the forms currently require a notary and how that works.
Mr.. Chairman if I if i made Jesse keel again for the record I I will note that
Well, it makes the most sense for The Court to write the court forms
I think that when we look at this particular section
where we provide an example of a power of attorney
for a parent to let someone else make certain decisions,
not all decisions about their child.
It's worthwhile for that to be verified in some way,
something akin to a notary.
It is important that there be some precautions in place.
I know that the difficulty of finding a Notary
hits different Alaskans differently.
That's a problem we've struggled with for long time.
the state did provide pass laws requested by a previous lieutenant governor that allowed for
some electronic notary services, some remotely accessible notery services. The chairman is
smiling, perhaps he worked more on that bill than I did. But we continue to do that.
I'm smiling Senator Killers. It was my bill.
And with that, I'll finish.
Unless my memory has not working right.
Which can happen, but I know I worked extensively on an electronic notary bill, and I believe it was my bill.
Mr. Chairman, I'll just note that I voted yes.
Well, then I appreciate that vote.
Mr Klein, we know you didn't sponsor the bill but you probably have more insight on notaries and the availability of notaries than anyone else here today.
I actually am far from an expert on notaries, unfortunately, but I do know that we have
notary services at all of our courthouses.
I also know this form is in current law, the one that you're referring to Senator Tobin,
so this is actually in AS1326.66 currently.
The court system generally does prefer to draft our own forms and the way that ...
Section is currently written. We have the option of using our own form
But the requirements of the forms the court system doesn't have a specific position on whether or not a notary should be required
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it would be helpful to understand as I
Personally have just struggled trying to find a Notary in downtown Anchorage
The local bank wasn't available to notarize the documents. I needed that
Anchorage legislative information office wasn't able to
notarize the documents I needed to and I can't imagine someone who didn't have
their own individual transportation and was able
to drive around downtown Anchorage might experience barriers or struggle if
those services are getting more challenging to locate as time goes on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a follow-up on Senator Tobin. I also recently was in the
encourage looking for a notary and did go to three different places and was unable, unable
to get my document notarized, which was fascinating to me because I've never gone through that
experience before, but it seems to be kind of a current trend. So thank you for bringing
that up, Senator Tomin
observation I see Ms. Hawke is coming for she probably has further thoughts on the
notary topic. The goal of the electronic notery was and I think is to make notaries
more accessible but it doesn't come without plenty of challenges and in just
work periodically on specifically helping
Helping clients deal with the state planning matters. I am not an estate planning lawyer
But sometimes I have clients that want me to assist them in that process and it's become that in the old days
You felt like you sort of go down to the bank
Show that you're working at that or you are a counterholder at the Bank and then somebody
Takes you quickly
over and you notarize something and go in your merry way and it has gone from that dynamic to
if you want to get notorized at the bank you better call in advance and schedule an appointment
because they have so many people coming for notary public loan signing. To get documents
noterized that you actually need to be prepared to either wait a long time or have an
appointment and better show up on time because you might lose your appointment to come back
the places like UPS stores have notaries available for a fee and usually you can go there without
an appointment. But the challenge of getting a notary, even with the electronic notaries,
is a real challenge today. And I think one of the ways some documents address that is instead
of requiring a Notary they'll be an alternative to allow two witnesses so that instead of having
two people that are witnesses, and so you have more witnesses.
So you had more means to check the verification.
And so one way to make, to deal with that challenge of can't find a notary
or it's taking me all day and I only had one day to do it,
and now that day's gone, I didn't get the notery,
might be provisions that would allow some alternative to a Notery
to verify the signature, which is actually.
Not unlike what we sometimes do in election related things and allow somebody to verify who they really are and don't always have notaries, sometimes have to.
I know that's a somewhat wandering observation, but those are things that might be worth looking at.
Mr. Chair, I would also note that I once tried to go to the lieutenant governor's office,
who oversees the notary program to get a notery, and it did not work.
Dooley noted
All right
Are there any other questions? I would note that
This is
162 pages the plan that
As chair of the community I have is this won't be our last hearing work our plan is to have
Senator keel's office back two or three more times and go through in more detail
Separate sections of The bill. I don't want to try to get us all to consume
160 pages of what some might describe as somewhat dry
and not necessarily the most exciting thing
we ever see in the legislature.
So we're gonna try to do this over two or three hearings
so we can have a pretty good understanding
of the depth of bill.
All right, Senator Keel, Ms. Hawke, thank you very much.
Let's better find where I am.
We're going to go ahead and set the bill aside unless Senator Kiel, you'd like to make any last remarks, okay?
No, thank Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for taking the committee's time today and a couple of the subsequent hearings.
I encourage members of committee if there are specific sections or issues that peak your interest.
We were happy to spend time on those specifically, just let us know.
Seeing nothing else. Thank you again for the presentation
We're going to put this aside for further review and we're gonna adjourn for today. Our next meeting will be on Monday February 9th at 1 30 p.m
We'll be having our first hearing on House Bill 101 crimes against minors age of consent to 18 sponsored by representative Gray
With that we'll stand adjourned. The time is now
227 p m