Certified Professional Guardian Board (CPGB)
June 9, 2006
Certified Professional Guardian Board
Ruth Craven (Excused)
Call to Order:
Entered Executive Session
Elderly people with no family and no resources need standards for guardianship. Overall, the Board is dealing with a minimum level of experience. The bar needs to be raised in the areas of education and training.
Judge Hogan adjoined the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
June 10, 2006
Chair: Judge Vicki Hogan
Vice-Chair:Comm. Fred Aronow
Judge M. Karlynn Haberly (Excused)
Sharon York (Excused)
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Judge Hogan immediately following breakfast at 9:15 a.m.
Judge Hogan thanked everyone for taking time from his or her business schedule to attend and participate in the retreat. The discussion from Friday night continued. Discussion items are included as follows:
Question #2 – What size should the Board be and what other entities should be represented.
§ It is important to have an active member of the Senior Citizen Lobby serving on the Board so that their perspective is included for consideration in Board decisions. The Senior Citizen Lobby is unique in that it is a coalition of senior organizations from around the state.
§ To be effective, new Board members must become acclimated to the Board, its procedures and processes faster. The new member orientation developed by Lynne Alfasso should facilitate that process. In addition, the Board should consider having experienced Board members serve as sponsors or mentors to the novice members. Everyone agreed this should be implemented with new Board members appointed.
In the interest of expanding the diversity, the Board discussed considering the following entities in Board discussions:
§ A lawyer/representative from one of the public advocacy groups, such as Washington Protection and Advocacy, (WPAS) and the Northwest Justice Project
§ Small guardian agencies
§ The state aging and long-term care ombudsman
§ Other areas outside of central Washington such as Wenatchee and the tri-cities core
§ Individuals with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds
When considering a new Board member, three organizations have designated positions: the Superior Court Judges’ Association (SCJA), the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA- 2 positions) and the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS- 1 position).
§ The Board should be larger to enable it to complete the number of tasks assigned.
§ If the Board becomes much larger, it will not be manageable and will become ineffective. Staggered and regular turnover of Board members should occur to provide an opportunity for other voices to be heard. Board members cannot remain on the Board indefinitely and term limits need to be included in the Regulations. The terms of five Board members end September 30, 2006 (Haberly, O‘Brien, Petersen, Reilly, Schmidt).
§ The Board needs to maintain a reasonable consistent approach or practice from year to year. Turnover on the board needs to be measured. New people need management ability separate and distinct from the grouping they represent. Serving at least two terms was discussed as a possible term limit.
§ The current Board size of 18 is effective.
§ The Board should develop a means to allow non-members to participate on the Board without being Board members.
§ Inviting people to serve on committees is a way to identify new leadership.
§ The Board has clear authority to ask non-board members to serve as a Hearing Officer, to provide education, and to perform editing tasks.
§ We need to develop a way to provide quality training to guardians in Eastern Washington. Lori Petersen has offered one training in Spokane this calendar year. Another is planned for October.
§ Board needs more face-to-face meetings. A tentative schedule will be drafted for 2007 and included in the statement of interest for Board volunteers.
§ More new Board member orientation, including providing more information on the background of the Board, is needed.
Question #3a - How can the Board improve the certification process? How can the Board better define tasks relative to the practice of guardianship?
It isn’t enough to require an associate or a bachelor’s degree, the Board should specify some content.
Question #3b - Are we interested in asking the Supreme Court to increase the minimum education requirement to a bachelor’s degree?
The prevailing nationwide practice in public guardianships is a bachelor or master’s degree.
Board members all believe that educational requirements should be higher than the current ones, but are unwilling to require bachelor’s degrees at this time.
Question #4 – What information is needed to perform a better assessment of applicants?
§ More specific questions on the application
§ Description of the different types of homes
§ Definition of terms
§ Tasks associated with position titles
The Board agreed by consensus to explore a bachelor’s degree and a certificate program at a local college. A sub-committee will be appointed to develop a certificate program. In the interim, the Board will consider more specific continuing education and a requirement to show proof of competency in a variety of areas. The sub-committee to explore a certificate program is comprised of – Craven, Jardine, Hibbard, Schmidt, Thompson Wininger. Anyone else interested in serving should contact the Board chair.
New Guardians usually don’t have the practice history that helps inform them of ethical discourse. Therefore, often what is being requesting in the guise of an Ethics Opinion is more akin to a request for guidance, a best practice. One question to be answered is - Does the Board want to continue writing Ethics Opinions, should the Board write best practices or both?
§ The difference between a Standard of Practice and a best practice is that a Standard of Practice is a required course of conduct under the Regulations. With a best practice, an equivalent or comparable method is acceptable. A Standard of Practice is the minimum standard. A best practice is above the minimum requirement.
§ If the Board writes ethics opinions they could be the basis of discipline. If not what is the purpose? If you have a best practice, you have something to measure and use for oversight and/or training.
§ It’s a great idea to distinguish between an ethics opinion or a best practice.
§ Any writing that the Board produces will be used in ways we may not have intended. It will become a quasi-recommendation. The Board could amend the Ethics Opinion Regulation to include the provision for best practices to be written by the Board.
§ What are ethics? What is a code of conduct?
§ Ethics: making decisions that do the most good with the least damage.
Under the current regulations, does the Board have the authority to issue best practices?
The Board should have authority under the training program to write best practices, but the Board has not written the Training Regulation.
It was moved and seconded that the Board write the Training Regulation in order to solidify authority for the board to issue best practices. The authority shall be under the training section of GR 23 and shall be cross-referenced in the Ethics Advisory Opinion Regulation. There will be no discipline for the violation of a best practice. Motion passed.
Proposed Regulation 406.12 was included in the Board materials. It was moved and properly seconded to adopt Reg. 406.12 with the following revisions:
Remove the word two.
add at the end “unless approved by the court.”
not delegable is a problematic sentence.
Friendly amendment to strike the last sentence
Motion passed – will be posted for 30 days.
It was moved and seconded to reconsider Regulation 406.12. The revision was as follows:
While it may be appropriate and necessary to retain the services of knowledgeable individuals or entities to assist in the performance of duties, it is the ultimate responsibility of the guardian to protect and preserve the guardianship estate. [With the rest accept for the last sentence. ]
Schmidt and Craven comprise the committee to write training objectives.
AOC is to draft the Training Regulation for Board approval and include the Board responsibility for the manual.
O’Brien will draft a request for statements of interest in serving on the Board.
The Board adjoined until the next meeting which is scheduled for July 10, 2006. 9 a.m.- noon at the Kilroy Center in Seatac, WA.
|Courts | Organizations | News | Opinions | Rules | Forms | Directory | Library|
|Back to Top | Privacy and Disclaimer Notices|