NM ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STUDY COMMISSIONAGENDA

August 11, 201712:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

State Bar CenterModrall Classroom

5121 Masthead St. N.E.Albuquerque, NM 87109

12:00 to 12:30 Agenda Item 1. Public comment. Members of the public are invited to address thecommission. Depending on attendance and participation, the duration and/or numberof comments may be limited by the chair to fit within the allotted time.

12:30 to 1:30 Agenda Item 2. Administrative matters.2A. Review and approve minutes from the meeting on July 14th.2B. Update on commission’s request for an opinion from the Attorney General

about the application of the Open Meetings Act.2C. Update on Judge York’s plan to meet with individuals who have been

reluctant to share their experiences with the guardianship system in a publicsetting.

2D. Discuss recent allegations of misconduct by court-appointed guardians,including Ayudando Guardians.

2E. Review and discuss the format of the Nevada Guardianship Commission’srecommendation as a possible framework for the interim report due byOctober 1st. The materials include a synopsis of the Nevada Commission’srecommendations to the Nevada Supreme Court.

1:30 to 4:00 Agenda Item 3. Subcommittee reports. Subcommittee representatives will reporttheir findings and recommendations to the commission on a first-come, first-servedbasis. The commission will discuss each recommendation, including whether anyrevisions or additional information may be necessary. For each recommendation, thecommission may vote on whether to include the recommendation in the interimreport or may defer a vote until a future meeting.

Page 1 of 23

Agenda Item 2A

Page 2 of 23

NEW MEXICO ADULT GUARDIANSHIP STUDY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

JULY 14, 2017

State Capitol Building (Roundhouse) 490 Old Santa Fe Tr.

Santa Fe, NM

A complete audio recording of this meeting is available on the commission’s website:

https://nmcourts.gov/Supreme-Court/audio-recordings-of-commission-meetings.aspx

Members present

Patricia Galindo, Vice-chair Jorja Armijo-Brasher Stephen Clampett Emily Darnell-Nunez Tim Gardner Hon. Dustin Hunter Conrad James Gaelle McConnell Jerry Ortiz y Pino (arrived after Agenda Item 1) Leslie Porter Patricia Stelzner (arrived after Agenda Item 1)

Members absent

Hon. Wendy York (Ret.), Chair Hon. Nancy Franchini Hon. Jared Hofacket Dr. Samuel Roll Jill Johnson Vigil

Agenda Item 1: Welcome, announcements, and administrative matters. The vice-chair called the meeting to order at approximately 9:15 a.m. and announced that she would be acting as chair for the meeting due to Judge York’s absence. Judge York was unable to attend the meeting because of previously scheduled travel plans. The vice-chair explained that the first issue under this agenda item was to set priorities for the three meetings that remain before October 1st, which is the commission’s deadline for submitting an interim report to the Supreme Court. The meetings are scheduled for August 11th, September 1st, and September 22nd and will be in Albuquerque, with the specific location(s) still to be determined. The vice-chair asked the committee to consider how its time should be spent at these meetings, given the rapidly approaching deadline. She noted that the commission had

Page 3 of 23

devoted its first three meetings to listening to a variety of professionals and members of the public about their roles in, experiences with, and ideas for improving the guardianship system in New Mexico. She further noted that a number of commissioners and members of the public had asked the commission to hear additional presentations from other individuals or entities who have an interest in the guardianship system. The vice-chair asked the commission to consider how the time required for hearing additional presentations would affect the commission’s ability to meet its October 1st deadline for developing and submitting recommendations to the Court.

• Motion #1: Commissioner Armijo-Brasher moved to continue to allow 30 minutes of public comment at all commission meetings that take place before the October 1st deadline. Several commissioners seconded the motion, which passed unanimously without discussion. (The vote was 9-0; Commissioners Ortiz y Pino and Stelzner were not present for and did not vote on this motion.)

• Motion #2: Judge Hunter moved to suspend hearing presentations at commission meetings until after the October 1st deadline and to focus on developing recommendations at the August and September meetings. Commissioner James seconded the motion. The motion passed, with Vice-chair Galindo and Commissioners Hunter, James, Armijo-Brasher, Porter, McConnell, and Clampett in favor and with Commissioners Darnell-Nunez and Gardner opposed. (The vote was 7-2; Commissioners Ortiz y Pino and Stelzner were not present for and did not vote on this motion.)

Judge Hunter clarified after Motion #2 passed that Judge York would retain the discretion as chair to schedule one or more presentations in August or September if it would help the commission consider a particular issue or recommendation. The commissioners agreed without discussion.

The second issue addressed by the commission under this agenda item was Commissioner Armijo-Brasher’s request that the commission strictly comply with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act (“OMA” or “the Act”). The vice-chair began the discussion by stating that the OMA does not apply to the commission as an arm of the Supreme Court but that the commission nonetheless substantially complies with the Act by (1) posting agendas on its public website at least 72 hours before every meeting; (2) posting any meeting materials on its website before each meeting; (3) posting full audio recordings of its meetings on its website; and (4) inviting public comment at each meeting and through the commission’s website. The vice-chair suggested that the only requirement that the commission does not strictly follow is the requirement to keep meeting minutes, but she emphasized that a verbatim recording of each meeting is available to the public on the commission’s website. Commissioner Armijo-Brasher then explained her request. She began by stating that she does not believe that the issue of whether the OMA applies to the commission is settled law, and in her view, the commission should be as open and transparent as possible. Rather than debate the issue, however, Commissioner Armijo-Brasher voiced her preference to ask the Attorney General for an opinion about whether the commission is subject to the Act.

Page 4 of 23

• Motion #3: Commissioner Armijo-Brasher moved that the commission ask the Attorney General for a written opinion about whether the commission is subject to the Open Meetings Act. Commissioner Darnell-Nunez seconded the motion. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Armijo-Brasher called the question, and the motion passed unanimously. (The vote was 9-0; Commissioners Ortiz y Pino and Stelzner were not present for and did not vote on this motion.)

The third issue addressed under this agenda item was Commissioner Armijo-Brasher’s request for the commission to reconsider its policy of asking members of the public to refrain from naming specific individuals or entities in their comments to the commission. Commissioner Armijo-Brasher explained that her request was rooted in her concern that the policy may be limiting input from the public and that sometimes identifying a specific person or entity may be a critical part of the information that is being given to the commission. The vice-chair read a statement from Judge York explaining that she had implemented the policy as a means of helping the commission and the public focus on systemic improvements to the guardianship system, rather than on whether misconduct may have occurred in a particular case. Judge York also offered in her statement to set aside a day to meet with family members, attorneys, or other members of the public who have been reluctant to come forward with their stories because of fear of retaliation. Commissioner James expressed concern about information that appears to have been redacted in written comments that have been posted to the website. Commission staff explained that he and his staff have not revised or redacted any information that has been posted to the website; rather, members of the public have voluntarily revised their comments at the request of commission staff when notified of the commission’s policy. These revisions generally have consisted of replacing a specific name with a more general term like “corporate guardian,” “judge,” or “protected person.” In a handful of comments, however, the commenter chose to comply by simply blacking out the specific names. The commission ultimately agreed to leave the policy in place and that no action was necessary on the issue. Agenda Item 2: Public comment. Several members of the public addressed the commission. A complete recording is available on the commission’s website at https://nmcourts.gov/Supreme-Court/audio-recordings-of-commission-meetings.aspx. Agenda Item 3: Overview of case-management system. Darla Goar, a representative of the Judicial Information Division (JID) of the Administrative Office of the Courts, gave a presentation to the commission about how a guardianship case is processed through Odyssey, the courts’ case-management system. Ms. Goar also presented preliminary data about the number of guardianship and conservatorship cases that have been filed each year since 2011, and the number of cases filed in 2015, 2016, and 2017 that are in “Adjudicated Case – Report Review” status, a case status that was created in 2015 to help the courts identify and manage guardianship and conservatorship cases after a guardian or conservator has been appointed. Senior Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, who was acting-Chief Justice at the time of the meeting, also was in attendance and participated in the discussion about

Page 5 of 23

how Odyssey could be used to support the commission’s efforts to improve the guardianship system. Genevieve Grant and Tim Elsbrock also attended the meeting on behalf of JID. Lunch. The commissioners took a break for lunch on their own. Agenda Item 4: Introduce subcommittee recommendation worksheet. Commission staff gave an overview of how the subcommittees were created, including how issues were identified and how commissioners and issues were assigned to each subcommittee. Staff also explained that all subcommittee recommendations will be presented to, discussed by, and voted on by the full committee at their public meetings on August 11th and September 1st. Staff presented a recommendation worksheet for the commission’s consideration to guide the subcommittees in formulating their recommendations. The commission agreed that the information required in the form was appropriate, including the prompts to consider how each recommendation can be tailored to meet the needs of the protected person and family members and how data can be used to track and improve outcomes. The commission also agreed to add a requirement to the form to indicate whether each recommendation has been addressed in the proposed Uniform Act, which is in the final stages of drafting by the Uniform Law Commission. Staff will revise the form and distribute it to the commissioners via email. The vice-chair adjourned the meeting at approximately 2:00 p.m. to allow the commissioners to work in subcommittees for the remainder of the afternoon.

Page 6 of 23

Agenda Item 2B

Page 7 of 23

Joshua A. Allison

Dan E. Gershon

David P. Gorman

Jeremiah L. Ritchie

Quentin Smith

Barbara G. Stephenson

Leah M. Stevens-Block

Eleanor C. Werenko

Of Counsel

Briggs E Cheney Ann M. Conway Lawrence J. Horan Thomas J. Horan (Retired) Wendy E. York Founders

Pat Sheehan (1918 - 2010) Timothy M. Sheehan (Retired)

6001 Indian School Rd, NE Suite 400 Albuquerque, NM 87110

PO Box 271 Albuquerque, NM 87103

SHEEHAN 8c SHEEHAN, P.A. Attorneys at Law I Est. 1954

Tel 505.247.0411 Fax 505.842.8890

SheehanSheehan.com

July 31, 2017

Hector Balderas, Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 201 Third Street, N. W., Suite 300 Albuquerque, NM 87102

Re: New Mexico Adult Guardianship Study Commission

Dear Attorney General Balderas:

As the chair of the New Mexico Adult Guardianship Study Commission, I am writing to inform you that the commission has voted unanimously to request an opinion on whether our commission is subject to the New Mexico Open Meetings Act.

The commission was established by the New Mexico Supreme Court "to study the operation and structure of the adult guardianship system in New Mexico, to report its findings to this Court and other participants in guardianship administration, and to make any recommendations it deems appropriate for improving the operation or structure of the New Mexico guardianship system." (Supreme Court Order No. 17-8110 (Apr. 6, 2017) (attached as Exhibit A)). As such, our sole authority is to make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding statutory and rule changes that we believe will improve the guardianship system. The Supreme Court is free to accept or reject our recommendations or to arrive at its own conclusions about what improvements it would like to pursue.

In terms of the nature and operation of our group, we are an unfunded volunteer commission of sixteen concerned citizens. Despite that limitation, our commission has held public meetings in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Las Cruces, and commission members have attended those meetings on their own dime. Regardless of whether the Open Meetings Act applies, we have a public website on which we post meeting dates, locations, agendas, and materials.' We also accept and post written comments on our website from members of the public, and we devote time at each of our meetings to hear from the public. We have not kept formal minutes, but now that we are entering the recommendation phase of our work, we will do so. We also have made complete audio

1 https://supremecourtnmcourts.govinew-mexico-adult-guardianship-study-commission.aspx

Page 8 of 23

Hector Balderas, Attorney General July 31, 2017 Page 2

recordings of each meeting and posted them to our website, where they are available to anyone interested in our work. Our goal is to be as open as possible and I believe that our commission has made every attempt to do so.

We have formulated three-to-four member subcommittees in an effort to accomplish as much as possible by the Supreme Court's October 1st deadline for submitting an interim report. Members of the subcommittees work together informally outside of the full-commission meetings, and their purpose is to research and develop recommendations for the full commission about issues that we have identified over the course of our first four meetings. The subcommittees will present their recommendations to the full commission in a public meeting, and the commission will discuss and vote publicly about whether to include the recommendations in the commission's interim report to the Supreme Court. Additionally, some individuals have expressed concern about speaking in a public meeting and the commission is allowing me to speak privately with those individuals to ensure that their concerns are heard.

I hope this letter provides you with adequate information about the Commission's role and the current process it has in place. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Very truly yours,

SHEEHAN & SHEEHAN, P.A.

By: WENDY E. YORK

WEY:tmm Enclosure

Page 9 of 23

5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

April 6, 2017

NO. 17-8110

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TI7E NEW MEXICO ADULT GU lIANSHIP STUDY COMMISSION

P ER

WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration upon the Court's own

motion to establish an ad hoc commission to study the operation and structure

10 of the adult guardianship system in New Mexico, to report its findings to this

11 Court and other participants in guardianship administration, and to make any

12 recommendations it deems appropriate for improving the operation or structure

13 of the New Mexico guardianship system;

14 WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, and the Court being sufficiently

15 advised, Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels, Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice

16 Edward L. Chavez, Justice Barbara J. Vigil, and Justice Judith K. Nakamura

17 concurring;

18 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the New Mexico Adult

19 Guardianship Study Commission hereby is ESTABLISHED;

1

Page 10 of 23

29

22 23 24 25 26

27 28

30

20 21

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following persons are appointed to

serve as members of the Commission until further order of this Court:

Wendy York Albuquerque, NM

Patricia M. Galindo Santa Fe, NM

Sen. Jerry Ortiz y Pino Albuquerque, NM

Conrad James Albuquerque, NM

Leslie Porter Santa Fe, NM

Stephen Clampett Santa Fe, NM

District Judge Nancy Franchini Albuquerque, NM

District Judge Jarod Hofacket Deming, NM

District Judge Dustin K. Hunter Roswell, NM

Dr. Samuel Roll Albuquerque, NM

Tim Gardner Albuquerque, NM

2

Page 11 of 23

4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Patricia Stelzner Albuquerque, NM

Jorj a Armijo-Brasher Albuquerque, NM

Emily Darnell Nunez Albuquerque, NM

Gaelic McConnell Albuquerque, NM

Jill Johnson Vigil Las Cruces, NM

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Commissioner Wendy York shall serve

as chair of the Commission and Commissioner Patricia Galindo shall serve as

vice-chair until further order of this Court;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Supreme Court Counsel

shall provide staff support to the committee; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission shall conduct such

public information-gathering hearings as it determines helpful, shall review both

facts and law relating to operation of the current system, shall consider proposed

improvements to the current system, and shall submit its findings and

recommendations to this Court without undue delay, including any

3

Page 12 of 23

8

10 11 12

recommendations the Commission may have for changes in court rules, statutes,

administrative practices, additional resources, or any other proposals that may

reasonably improve the guardianship system in New Mexico, with an initial

status report to the Court no later than October 1, 2017, and such other interim

and final reports as the Commission deems appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

(SEAL)

WITNESS, Honorable Charles W. Daniels, Chief Justice of the e State of New Mexico, and the s day of il, 2017.

4

Page 13 of 23

Agenda Item 2CThere are no materials for this agenda item.

Page 14 of 23

Agenda Item 2D

Page 15 of 23

8/3/2017 Ayudando exec testified for industry before arrest | Albuquerque Journal

https://www.abqjournal.com/1038263/ayudando-executive-testified-for-industry-prior-to-arrest.html 1/2

Delivery alert until NaN

Ayudando exec testified for industry before arrest

By Colleen Heild / Journal Investigative Reporter

Published: Tuesday, July 25th, 2017 at 6:44pmUpdated: Tuesday, July 25th, 2017 at 10:13pm

Copyright © 2017 Albuquerque Journal

When the new state Supreme Court commission studying guardianship reform met in May, the person who testifiedon behalf of professional guardians in New Mexico was Sharon Moore from Ayudando Guardians.

The same Sharon Moore appeared last week before a U.S. magistrate in Albuquerque to plead not guilty to federalcharges of embezzling millions of dollars from Ayudando clients to finance a “lavish lifestyle.”

Alongside her in the courtroom was her “business partner” at Ayudando, Susan Harris, who – along with thecompany itself – is also charged in the 28-count indictment with criminal violations.

The indictment accuses the two women of charging up to $4 million in personal expenses, including travel, on theAyudando company credit card and using funds from special-needs clients to pay the bills as they financedeverything from cruises to luxury vehicles.

Two months earlier, Moore told the special commission that those employed by Ayudando adhered to a “modelcode of ethics,” and that the company had the trust of district judges who appointed it to act as guardian for clientsin need of services.

According to the indictment, Ayudando receives government benefit payments from the U.S. Department ofVeterans Affairs and U.S. Social Security Administration on behalf of many of its clients, and acts as a fiduciary orrepresentative payee for these clients by paying their expenses and maintaining the balances for the benefit of theclients.

The indictment contends that Moore, the chief financial officer, filed fraudulent reports from January to Novemberof last year with the VA involving about 10 veterans who are Ayudando clients.

An attorney for Moore, 62, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Since the indictment was unsealed last Wednesday, the state Office of Guardianship, which contracts withAyudando to represent indigent clients, has not responded to Journal questions about the company – such aswhether audits were conducted or bonds were required as a condition of receiving annual contracts.

The state sunshine portal shows that since July 2009, the state has contracted to pay Ayudando more than $5.7million to act as court-appointed guardian for clients who are indigent or are otherwise eligible for a state-paidprofessional company to manage their living and other expenses.

The state Office of Guardianship, which approved Ayudando’s most recent annual contract, for $640,000, hasoffered no explanation for its silence related to its oversight of Ayudando.

But Moore, in her testimony to the Supreme Court commission on May 12, offered some details about Ayudando’soperations.

‘We do have standards’

Moore said the company has about 185 clients, but she didn’t provide a breakdown as to how many are indigentand therefore qualify for state-paid guardianship services, and how many are private.

Moore said her company, which she said has been in existence for about 14 years, employs nationally certifiedguardians. Both she and Harris are on the list of New Mexico guardians certified by national Center forGuardianship Certification in Harrisburg, Pa.

Page 16 of 23

8/3/2017 Ayudando exec testified for industry before arrest | Albuquerque Journal

https://www.abqjournal.com/1038263/ayudando-executive-testified-for-industry-prior-to-arrest.html 2/2

Such certification isn’t required by state law but is mandated in Ayudando’s contract with the state.

Moore said state district judges in New Mexico put their trust in Ayudando when appointing the company to act asguardians or conservator or both.

“And therefore, we don’t just run amok. We do have standards,” Moore told the 16-member group in May.

The commission, which includes judges, lawyers, representatives for the aging, Governor’s Office appointees and amember of the public, was appointed by the Supreme Court in April after concerns were raised in the Journal andelsewhere that courts in New Mexico needed more oversight of the guardians, who typically operate under thepublic radar because such cases are deemed confidential and are sealed by law.

The checks and balances provided by the current guardianship system rely heavily on judges, who by law aresupposed to review annual reports submitted by guardians as to the welfare of the “incapacitated person” underguardianship.

Additional oversight

In the case of Ayudando’s work for the state, there was another layer of oversight, Moore told the commission.

“We do a lot of work for the Office of Guardianship,” she said. “We are audited for sure once a year, and if there isa problem they (the office) get called in on, they come to us.”

She said the caseload for each of the 12 guardians who work for the Albuquerque-based company, can be as manyas 30 clients under the Office of Guardianship contract.

But Moore added, “I try not to overwhelm them. Some might get to 30 if they have nursing home clients.”

In contrast to family members who say they have been left out of the process when a professional guardian isappointed for a loved one, Moore said her company actually helps clients or their families write letters to the judgesoverseeing the case if there are concerns about a guardian’s conduct.

Federal prosecutors say it wasn’t a judge or a state audit that prompted the investigation that led to the FBI, IRS,VA and Social Security Administration investigation of Ayudando. It was an unidentified Ayudando employee whocontacted a federal law enforcement agency with the embezzlement allegations.

The indictment prompted one former Ayudando employee to contact the Journal via email, saying in part, “ThoughI am sad for some really good people working at Ayudando Guardians, I am glad to know justice is being servedagainst this heinous agency that duped so many vulnerable adults.”

The U.S. Marshals Service, meanwhile, has assumed control of the business operations of the firm.

Contact the writer.

X

Click the lock to give your browser permission to send you notifications then refresh the page.

Page 17 of 23

Agenda Item 2E

Page 18 of 23

FILED SEP 2 9 2016

By TILHt\ G R E)Clv i:LE K. LINDE jMAN CLEF F SUPREME COURT

CLERK

Final Report Nevada Supreme Court's Commission to

Study the Administration of Guardianships in Nevada's Courts

[Administrative Docket Number 5071 September 2016

Page 19 of 23

SYNOPSIS OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE SUPREME COURT’S COMMISSION TO STUDY THE ADMINISTRATION OF GUARDIANSHIPS

This is a list of the proposals of the Commission, which begin on page 110 of the report. The proposals are divided into three sections. Detailed discussion notes follow each proposal in the full report, should more information be needed. The full report can be found at http://nvcourts.gov/AOC/Templates/documents.aspx?folderID=21887

Section A, Court Rules, contains those suggested changes that can be accomplished through rules written and approved by the Supreme Court for the District Courts. Section B, Legislation, contains the suggested changes that can be accomplished by the State Legislature through their process. Section C contains Policy Statements of Support from the Commission.

A. Court Rules 1. Establish a permanent Commission to address issues of concern of those

persons who would be subject to the guardianship statutes, rules, andprocedures in Nevada.

2. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt court rules outlining theduties of an attorney for a Proposed Protected Person or Protected Person.

3. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt court rules outlining theduties of an attorney guardian ad litem for a Proposed Protected Person orProtected Person.

4. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to develop procedures or CourtRules to require mediations in all contested guardianship proceedings.

5. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt Court Rules to evaluateCourt supervision of guardianships including training, staffing, scheduling andcaseload limits.

6. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt Court Rules appropriateto designate training and caseloads for private and professional guardians.

7. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt uniform statewide CourtRules and forms for the processing of guardianship proceedings in all NevadaDistrict Courts.

8. The Commission urges the Supreme Court adopt a Court Rule to require theCourt to make specific findings if the Court does not order a bond or blockedaccount.

9. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt a Court Rule regardingNRS 159.057. The rule would require the court to create and maintain aseparate case for each individual protected person regardless of whether onepetition was filed for two or more protected persons.

Page 20 of 23

10. The Commission urges the State Court Administrator to adopt a uniformGuardianship Information Sheet to be used by all District Courts pursuant toNRS 3.275.

11. The Commission urges the use of court-performance measures in all DistrictCourts. Measures would include age of pending case, time to disposition,and clearance rates for guardianship cases.

12. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt Court Rules for thequalifications of Non-Attorney Guardian ad Litem or Advocate.

13. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt Court Rules outlining theinitial plan for guardianship.

14. The Commission urges the Supreme Court to adopt a modification to theJudicial Code, as necessary, to accommodate the judge’s ability to addressex parte communications that deal with the welfare of the Protected Person.

B. Legislative Recommendations 1. The Commission recommends NRS 159.0485 make clear that legal counsel

be appointed for every Proposed Protected Person, regardless of means.2. The Commission urges the Legislature to approve an increase in recording

fees of $1.50 pursuant to NRS 247.305, for funds to be distributed in eachcounty to legal aid organizations to provide legal counsel for all ProposedProtected Persons and Protected Minors in guardianship proceedings. In theabsence of a legal aid organization in a given judicial district, the Court mayappoint counsel to provide legal services with those funds. The funds for thelegal aid organization, in a given judicial district, will be set aside by theAccess to Justice Commission of the Nevada Supreme Court.

3. Replace the term “ward” as defined in NRS 159.027 with the term “ProposedProtected Person” or “Proposed Protected Minor” pre-adjudication and“Protected Person” or “Protected Minor” post-adjudication. This will requireamendments to multiple statutes where the term “Ward” is used.

4. Revise NRS Chapter 159 to incorporate the concept of “IncapacitatedPerson.”

5. The Commission recommends legislation to add a Bill of Rights with theunderstanding the Bill of Rights would be included in the Guardianship Oathand be subject to enforceability through a private right of action.

6. The Commission recommends the following rights of a Proposed ProtectedPerson or Protected Person that should be included in the Statutes underNRS Chapter 159.

Page 21 of 23

7. The Commission recommends adding a new Chapter 159A to Nevada Revised Statutes to address guardianships specific to Proposed Protected Minors and Protected Minors.

8. The Commission recommends adding statutory language for the compensation of attorneys in guardianship cases.

9. The Commission recommends amending statutory language for notice in guardianship proceedings.

10. The Commission recommends proof of personal service by affidavit be required to show proof a Protected Person was served notice of the petition.

11. The Commission calls upon the Legislature to establish statewide standards for the guardianship investigation, administration, and accounting. The statewide model is a national best practice and the Commission urges the Legislature to look into creating a Statewide Office of Public Guardian. This would include the Commission’s prior recommendation to approve the use of investigators, as necessary, and auditors or accountants, to evaluate financial records and fee requests, and other petitions/motions raising financial issues concerning the Protected Person.

12. The Commission supports the recommendations relating to the Appointment of Registered Agent by Nonresident Guardian of Adult. The Resolution provided by the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office is included as Exhibit M.

13. The Commission supports legislation to have the Secretary of State’s Lockbox Program expanded to include designations of guardians.

14. The Commission recommends the Legislature eliminate the collection of payment for filing fees in all guardianship cases.

15. The Commission recommends a statutory provision stating, “Upon the filing of a guardianship action, the proposed guardian may also be required to file a proposed preliminary care plan and budget. The format of said plan, and the timing of the filing, shall be specified by court rule approved by the Nevada Supreme Court.

16. The Commission recommends amendments to NRS Chapter 159 concerning the management and administration of the Protected Person’s estate and personal property.

C. Policy Statements of Support 1. The Commission adopts a policy statement that every Protected Person,

regardless of means, is entitled to legal counsel. 2. The Commission authorizes the chair to send a letter to county

commissioners to provide financial support to legal aid organizations to make counsel available for all Protected Persons until the next legislative session.

Page 22 of 23

3. The Commission adopts a policy statement that the Commission is in favor of acknowledging the purposes and tenets behind “person-centered planning” and determinations by the Court that guardianships are approved only for “least-restrictive alternatives.” Additionally, the Court should be required to make specific findings in any order appointing a guardian that includes a conclusion that no other “least-restrictive means” are available to address the needs of the Proposed Protected Person.

4. Left blank 5. The Commission adopts a policy statement encouraging the use of volunteers

or programs in each district as appropriate and available. 6. The Commission adopts a policy statement that the Commission determined

there are policies, court rules, and statutes in place to address confidentiality. 7. The Commission adopts a policy statement that every hearing involving a

Protected Person should require the Protected Person’s presence, which could only be exempt upon a medical showing or some other good cause approved by the Court. Good cause findings would be incorporated into the reference of good cause approved by the Court. This applies to adult Protected Persons only.

8. The Commission adopts a policy statement that the Commission favors the use of special guardianships pursuant to NRS 159.0487, NRS 159.0795, and NRS 159.0801, in circumstances in which the capacity of the individual may not place the person in a position where a full guardianship is warranted. The Commission voted that this is consistent with the approach the Commission has taken in its recommendation to use special guardianships as a starting point, not as the exception when making these findings and determinations.

9. The Commission supports the concept, which would require greater evidence for the judge to make the determination of exactly what incapacity is and how it is documented and supported.

10. The Commission supports the application for a grant through the National Resource Center for Supported Decision Making in an effort to expand knowledge of the Supported Decision-Making Process and its agreements as alternative to a guardianship.

Prepared by Sally Ramm October 3, 2016

Page 23 of 23