Certified Professional Guardian Board (CPGB)

April 11, 2011 Meeting Minutes

 

Certified Professional Guardian Board
Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2011
SeaTac Office Center, 18000 International Blvd., SeaTac, WA
 
 

Acting Chair
Members Absent
Judge James Lawler
Judge Chris Wickham
 
Dr. Barbara Cochrane
Members Present
Carol Sloan
Robin Balsam
 
Gary Beagle
Staff
Nancy Dapper
Deborah Jameson
William Jaback
 
Chris Neil
Visitors
Judge Kimberley Prochnau
Brenda Morales
Emily Rogers
Karla Edwards
Prof. Winsor Schmidt
Bruce Buckles
Judge Robert Swisher
Dan Smerken
Comm. Joseph Valente
Tom Goldsmith
 
Glenda Voller

 
Call to Order
Judge Lawler called the meeting to order at 9:00 am.

Board Business
1. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes as presented for the Board meeting held on March 14, 2011. The motion passed.[1]

2. Chair Report
Judge Lawler reported on the following topics:
a)    Legislative Update: Judge Prochnau reported that
 
                       i.     SHB 1053 has passed out of the House and gone to the Senate for its 3rd reading. It calls for mandatory lay guardian training, directs the clerk to issue letters, a decision about a review hearing on the personal care plan, the guardian to send notice of right to request special notice within 90 days and designate a standby guardian, creates a summary form, and allows the court to set a show cause hearing if a guardian fails to file a report.
 
                     ii.     SHB 1104 and SSB 5042 which both expand the definition of vulnerable adult and financial abuse have passed out of the chamber of origin and into the other chamber. 
 
                    iii.     ESSB 5740 has passed out of the Senate into the House and gone through 3 readings. The bill would require more notice about the proposed guardian, GAL disclosure of conflicts, accounts to be sent quarterly to all notice parties in cases with an estate greater than $200,000, removal by the court of any guardian who intentionally falsified a document, and have online information. 
 
                    iv.     SB 5819 which would expand the duties of a guardian to report on activities related to providing training and education and ensuring the least restrictive residential setting, has passed out of the Senate into the House.
 
b)    Long Term Planning Meeting. The Board discussed its preferences about the meeting and who would be attending.   Staff will send out an email about attendance.
 
c)    Posting Material: The Board discussed whether meeting materials should be posted on the CPG web site so that members of the public can print off copies prior to meetings. The Board was concerned about confidential material accidently being posted, but thought that it was a good idea and should be done.
 
d)    The Supreme Court has requested that the CPG Board (and other Commissions, Task Forces or Committees) provide comments to the Court about the Assessment Project Report. The Board discussed the request and noted that they support increasing the diversity of the profession and of the Board. They also mentioned that because the Board is a regulatory body that represents a variety of interests, it is important that the Board chair have direct access to the Supreme Court on a periodic basis. Judge Lawler noted that the Chair will be meeting with the Supreme Court in June. The Board requested staff to draft a letter regarding its support of the project and its concern.
 
3. CPG Practice Experience:
Dan Smerken talked about an experience that he had in trying to get dental care for a client who was in a persistent vegetative state. The client is in a skilled nursing facility and had not had dental care for about eleven years. It took Mr. Smerken from August 2009 to May 2010 to arrange for the dentist appointment at the University of Washington, transportation, and staff to accompany the client. He described the many, many road blocks that he had to overcome, including difficulty with obtaining a physician’s order directing the dental appointment from the facility doctor and questions about whether the skilled nursing facility had to provide an attendant (it did). Mr. Smerken had to get his state representative involved to arrange the dental care for his client.
 
4. Committee Reports
a.       Regulations Committee: Standards of Practice Revisions
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt language from the NGA preamble about statutory construction in SOP 400 as follows: 
 
To ensure consistency in the way the standards are applied, the following constructions are used: "shall" imposes a duty, "may" creates discretionary authority or grants permission or a power, "must" creates or recognizes a condition precedent, and “should” creates a duty or obligation, but is not absolute, "is entitled to" creates or recognizes a right, and "may not" imposes a prohibition and is synonymous with "shall not."[2]
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 403.6 as follows:
 
403.6 The guardian shall determine the extent to which the incapacitated person identifies with particular ethnic, religious, and cultural values and shall consider those values in the guardian’s decision-making to the extent appropriate.[3]
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 403.7.1 as follows:
 
403.7 Sexual Expression: 
403.7.1 The guardian shall acknowledge the IP’s right to interpersonal relationships and sexual expression. The guardian must take steps to ensure that an environment conducive to this expression in privacy is provided. The guardian should protect the IP from non-consensual sexual expression and from victimization.
 
Discussion: The Board noted that consent is problematic for an incapacitated person and that inappropriate sexual activity can be a consequence of dementia. There were friendly amendments to the motion to adopt SOP 403.7.1 and it was adopted unanimously as follows:
 
403.7.1 The guardian shall acknowledge the incapacitated person’s right to interpersonal relationships and sexual expression. The guardian shall take reasonable steps to ensure that a private environment conducive to this expression is provided. The guardian shall take reasonable steps to protect the incapacitated person from victimization.[4]
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 403.7.2 as follows:
 
403.7.2 The guardian shall ensure that the IP is informed of birth control methods when appropriate. [5]
 
Discussion: There was some discussion about whether it is a guardian’s role to inform an incapacitated person about birth control and some discussion of the age of the IP. 
 
The motion passed.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 403.7.3 as follows:
 
403.7.3 The guardian shall protect the rights of the IP with regard to sexual expression and preference. A review of ethnic, religious, and cultural values may be necessary to uphold the IP’s values and customs.[6]
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 403.8 as follows and move it to section 403.3 and renumber the previous sections:
 
403.8 The guardian shall evaluate the alternatives that are available and choose the one that best meets the needs of the incapacitated person while placing the least restrictions on the incapacitated person’s freedom, rights, and ability to control his or her environment.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.1 as follows:
 
404.1 401.15 Guardians of the Person shall have meaningful in-person contact with their clients as needed, generally no less than monthly. If contact is not made monthly, the reasons for less frequent contact shall be documented and included in the periodic reporting to the court. Living in a staffed residential facility or at home with a paid caregiver is not sufficient justification for reducing the frequency of in person contact.  and shall maintain telephone contact with care providers, medical staff, and others who manage aspects of care as needed and appropriate. Meaningful in-person contact shall provide the opportunity to observe the incapacitated person's circumstances and interactions with care givers.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.1.1 as follows:
 
404.1.1 The guardian shall assess the incapacitated person's physical appearance and condition and assess the appropriateness of the incapacitated person's current living situation and the continuation of existing services, taking into consideration all aspects of social, psychological, educational, direct services, health and personal care needs, as well as the need for any additional services.
 
Discussion: The Board discussed the balance between respecting the incapacitated person’s privacy and dignity and the need to ensure that the IP is not being neglected or abused.  There was a friendly amendment to SOP 401.1.1 as follows:
 
404.1.1 The guardian should, when appropriate, assess the incapacitated person's physical appearance and condition (taking into account the incapacitated person’s privacy and dignity) and assess the appropriateness of the incapacitated person's current living situation and the continuation of existing services, taking into consideration all aspects of social, psychological, educational, direct services, health and personal care needs, as well as the need for any additional services.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.1.2 as follows:
 
404.1.2 The guardian shall maintain regular communication with service providers, caregivers, and others attending to the incapacitated person.
 
Discussion: There was a friendly amendment to add the language, “to the extent regular communication is feasible.” The motion failed. A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.1.2 as follows:
 
404.1.2 The guardian shall maintain regular communication with service providers, caregivers, and others attending to the incapacitated person.
 
The motion passed.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.1.3 as follows:
 
404.1.3 The guardian shall participate in care or planning decisions concerning the residential, educational, vocational, or rehabilitation program of the incapacitated person.
 
Discussion: The Board discussed whether a guardian had to physically attend all care or planning conferences because there was a concern that would be unduly burdensome. There was also discussion about how many care conferences do not require decisions to be made. There was a friendly amendment to the regulation as follows:
 
404.1.3 The guardian shouldshall participate in significant care or planning decisions concerning the residential, educational, vocational, or rehabilitation program of the incapacitated person. Participation does not mean that the guardian must physically be present.
 
The motion to adopt the regulation above failed. 
 
There was a motion made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.1.3 as follows:
 
404.1.3 The guardian shall participate in care or planning decisions concerning the residential, educational, vocational, or rehabilitation program of the incapacitated person.
 
The motion passed. The chair voted to break the tie.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.1.4 as follows:
 
404.1.4 The guardian shall request that each extended-care professional service provider develop an appropriate service plan for the incapacitated person and take appropriate action to ensure that the service plans are being implemented.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.1.5 as follows:
 
404.1.5 The guardian shall ensure that the personal care plan is being properly followed by examining charts, notes, logs, evaluations, and other documents regarding the incapacitated person at the place of residence and at any program site.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.2 as follows:
 
404.2 401.16 Guardians of the Estate only shall maintain meaningful in-person contact with their clients generally no less than quarterly absent court order, but in any event, at a frequency as appropriate and as necessary to verify the individual's condition and status and that financial arrangements are appropriate appropriateness of financial arrangements.
 
Discussion: The Board discussed concerns that quarterly visits would in some cases be more frequent than needed, especially in cases involving minor guardianships. There was also discussion about whether a guardian should go into court to seek an order approving other than quarterly visits (in an appropriate case) or wait until the next reporting due date.
 
The motion passed.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 404.3 as follows:
 
404.3      Each certified professional guardian or certified professional guardian agency shall conduct a criminal history check on any guardian or agency employees who come into contact with the person or estate of an incapacitated person prior to any contact. No guardian or agency shall knowingly allow an employee who has been convicted of a felony or has been adjudicated by any court or administrative agency of having engaged in abuse, neglect or financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult or child to have contact with the person or estate of an incapacitated person. 
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 406.1 as follows:
 
406.1 403 The guardian shall exhibit the highest degree of trust, loyalty, and attentiveness in relation to the incapacitated person and the incapacitated person’s estate. 
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 406.2 as follows:
 
406.2 406.9 There shall be no self-interest in the management of the estate or the management of the person by the guardian; the guardian shall exercise caution to avoid even the appearance of self-interest or conflict of interest. An appearance of conflict of interest is a situation that a reasonable person might perceive as self-serving or adverse to the interest of the incapacitated person.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 406.3 as follows:
 
406.3 403.1 The guardian shall avoid self-dealing, conflict of interest, and the appearance of a conflict of interest. Self-dealing or a A conflict of interest arises when the guardian has some personal, family or agency interest that is self-serving or adverse to the interest of the incapacitated person.  If the guardian intends to proceed in the face of a conflict of interest, a guardian shall disclose the conflict of interest to the court and seek prior court approval. Any potential conflict shall be disclosed to the court immediately in writing.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 406.4 as follows:
 
406.4 403.4, 403.5 The guardian or agency (or an entity owned by the guardian) shall not directly provide services such as housing, medical, or therapeutic services to the incapacitated person or profit from any transaction made on behalf of the incapacitated person’s estate. Some direct services may be approved by the court provided permission of the court is given in advance of the services being provided.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to renumber SOP 406.5, 406.6, and 406.7 as follows:
 
406.5           406.7 A guardian shall not accept a gift from an incapacitated person or their estate other than ordinary social hospitality.
 
406.6 403.7 Payment of fees or other compensation for guardianship services by a party other than the incapacitated person is a potential conflict of interest which shall be fully disclosed.
 
406.7           403.8 The guardian shall protect the incapacitated person's rights and best interests against infringement by third parties.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 407.7 as follows:
 
407.7 404.6 Before relocating the incapacitated person to a new residence, the guardian shall consult  A relocation should include consultation with professionals actively involved in the care of the incapacitated person, the incapacitated person, objective third parties and, whenever possible, appropriately involved family and friends of the incapacitated person should consult professionals, notice parties, and other third parties involved with the incapacitated person’s care. Guardians are responsible for their actions and if they act without appropriate regard to the opinions and sensibilities of the IP, family, friends or professionals the guardian has violated the standard.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 407.9 as follows:
407.9 404.9 Should the only available residential placement not be the most appropriate or least restrictive, the guardian shall regularly review alternatives to that the placement and shall make reasonable efforts to arrange an appropriate and least restrictive residential alternative.
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 407.10 as follows:
 
407.10 404.8 The guardian shall regularly monitor the incapacitated person's residential placement to ensure appropriateness that it is appropriate and that such placement is the least restrictive alternative. The guardian shall should consent to changes, as they become necessary, advantageous, or otherwise in the incapacitated person's best interests. The guardian shall should consider that even changes within an existing residential facility may have an impact on the quality of life of the incapacitated person.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 408.1 as follows:
 
408.1 405 The guardian shall provide informed consent on behalf of the incapacitated person for the provision of care, treatment and services and shall ensure that such care, treatment and services represents the least invasive restrictive form of intervention that is appropriate and available. The components of informed consent include, but are not necessarily limited to, an understanding by the guardian of: (1) the reason for, and nature of, the treatment (2) the benefits of and necessity for the treatment; (3) the possible risks, side effects and other consequences of the treatment and (4) alternative treatments or measures that are available and their respective risks, side effects, and benefits. 
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 408.4 as follows:
 
408. 4 405.2 The guardian shall actively promote the health of the incapacitated person by arranging for regular preventive care including but not limited to dental care, diagnostic testing, and routine medical examinations to the extent preventative care and resources are available.
 
The motion passed. 
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 408.2 as follows:
 
408.2 The duty to provide informed consent does not prevent a guardian from electing to make code status decisions in advance of need. 
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 408.3 as follows:
 
408.3 405.6 The guardian shall be familiar with the law regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 408.5 as follows:
 
408.5 405.3 The guardian shall be available at all times to respond to urgent need for medical decisions. The guardian shall provide instructions directives regarding treatment or non-treatment to be followed by medical staff in emergencies.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
5. Staff Update:
Staff reported that a question came up about whether CPG ID Badges would be useful. Certified and Registered Court Interpreters have badges and like that it adds to their professionalism when in the courtroom setting. The cost would be fairly small, less than $100.00. Samples of ID Badges were passed out. The Board thought that offering badges to CPGs was a good idea. They suggested that it not be mandatory. If a CPG submits a photo, they will be issued a card that is valid for the year.
 
Staff also reported that the Board’s telephone meetings are open to the public, but few members of the public attend because the only current way to access the meeting is by going to Olympia. The goal is to allow members of the public to attend the “virtual meeting rooms” and hear the discussion via streaming audio. Breakout rooms can be created for executive session. It is hoped that staff will be ready to try this at the May meeting. The Board thought it was a good idea.
 
6. Committee Reports cont’d
a.       SOPC Committee: 
The committee chair reported that in CPGB No. 2007-025, the guardian and guardian agency had complied with the Agreement Regarding Discipline and the SOPC was recommending the Board close the disciplinary matter based on the compliance.
It was moved and seconded to close grievance number 2007-025 based on the compliance of the guardian with the Agreement Regarding Discipline. The motion passed.
 
The committee chair also reported that the SOPC had reviewed a draft implementation process to audit guardian’s compliance with E&O regulations. Guardians who have E&O insurance will not be audited. It was moved and seconded to adopt the E&O Audit Compliance proposal. The motion passed.
 
b.       Applications Committee: The committee chair reported that two regulations are ready for the Board to vote on for final adoption because the comment period has expired. The comments were positive. A motion was made and seconded to amend regulation 111.3.1 as follows: 
 
111.3.1 The initial certification fee for both individuals and agencies is due sixty (60) thirty (30) days after notice of the application’s approval by the Board for certification. 
 
The motion passed.
 
A motion was made and seconded to amend regulation 112 and 113 as follows: 
 
          112.2 A CPG on voluntary inactive status by the Board is not required to pay the full annual fee, but shall pay in accordance with Regulation 111.6.3. A CPG on voluntary inactive status is required to file an E&O declaration and the Annual Disclosure.[7]
 
          112.5 Prior to requesting inactive status, the CPG shall:
 
             112.5.1 Comply with all statutory and court-ordered requirements for discharge from responsibilities as a guardian in each case in which the CPG has been appointed, with the exception that a guardian who is not a member of the incapacitated person’s family and who charges fees for carrying out the duties of court-appointed guardian may retain guardianship over two incapacitated persons.
 
          113.2 The surrender of certification shall not be effective until the CPG or Agency has met the following requirements: 
 
113.2.1 Complied with all statutory and court-ordered requirements for discharge from responsibilities as a guardian in each case in which the CPG or Agency has been appointed, with the exception that a guardian who is not a member of the incapacitated person’s family and who charges fees for carrying out the duties of court-appointed guardian may retain guardianship over two incapacitated persons.
 
The motion passed.
 
c.       Education Committee: The committee chair reported that the Education Committee was looking further into the idea of testing and had a phone meeting with the Center for Guardianship Certification. The Committee will prepare a report to the Board about the advantages and considerations of testing.
 
The committee also recommended the adoption of regulation 202.3 to address the allocation of carryover credits. A motion was made and seconded to post amendments to regulation 202.3 as follows: 
 
202.3 If an active Guardian completes more than 24 credit hours in a given reporting period, the excess credit, up to 12 credits, may will be carried forward and applied to such Guardian’s education requirement for the next reporting period.   Four (4) General and, two (2) Ethics, three (3) Person, and three (3) Estate credits may will be carried forward to the next reporting period in their original categories. only as General and Ethics credits, respectively. Credits earned in Person or Estate may be carried over in their original category or may be transferred to General Credits
 
The motion passed.
 
d.       Appeals Panel: Judge Lawler reported that the Board has received 4 appeals from denials of certification. In one case, the panel granted an extension of time to file materials. The other two appeals will be discussed in Executive Session. Judge Lawler also requested that a Board member volunteer to serve on the panel of the fourth appeal and Gary Beagle agreed.
 
7. Executive Session
The Board adjourned to executive session. 

8. Open Session
The Board reconvened in open session and took the following actions:
 
a.       Motion made and seconded to adopt the Recommendation of the Appeal Panel in the Joanni Anderson Appeal and affirm the denial of Ms. Anderson’s application for certification as a professional guardian based on GR 23 (d)(1)(iv) and (v). The motion passed. (The appeals panel did not vote). 
 
b.       Motion made and seconded to adopt the Recommendation of the Appeal Panel in the James James Appeal and conditionally approve Mr. James’ application for certification as a professional guardian dependent upon successful completion of the UWEO Guardianship Certificate Program and no intervening disqualifying events. The motion passed. (The appeals panel did not vote).
 
c.       Motion made and seconded to accept the recommendation of the Applications Committee and deny the approval of the following application for certification based on lack of experience as described in GR 23(d)(1)(iv) and (v). Motion passed.
         Marcia Brown                              CPG #11434
 
d.       Motion made and seconded for conditional approval of the following application for certification. Motion passed. 
          Lisa Mary Edlin                            CPG # 11424
 
e.       Motion made and seconded for conditional approval of the following application for certification. Motion passed.
          Mary Fleischman                          CPG# 11432
 
f.        Motion made and seconded for conditional approval of the following application for certification. Motion passed.
          Christine Sue Hanson                   CPG # 11425
 
g.       Motion made and seconded for conditional approval of the following application for certification. Motion passed.
          Sari Spieler                                  CPG # 11412
 
h.       Motion made and seconded for conditional approval of the following application for certification. Motion passed.
          Paul Van Wyk                              CPG # 11404
 
i.        Motion made and seconded to allow Terese Marcoe, CPG #10009 to go on inactive status. Motion passed.
 
9. Committee Reports cont’d
a.       Regulations Committee: Standards of Practice Revisions
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 409.1 as follows:
 
409.1 406 The guardian shall assure competent management of the property and income of the estate. In the discharge of this duty, the guardian shall exercise the highest level of fiduciary responsibility, intelligence, prudence, and diligence and avoid any self-interest .  The management of the estate shall be documented by means of accurate and complete records of all transactions.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 409.1.1 as follows:
 
409.1.1 The guardian shall meet with the incapacitated person and gather information from family, friends and other collateral sources, as soon as practicable after appointment, to determine the current wishes of the incapacitated person and to obtain historical information about the IP’s prior management of financial affairs.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 409.1.2 as follows:
 
409.1.2 The guardian shall, with notice to and permission from the court, allow the incapacitated person to manage funds to his or her ability when appropriate.
 
Discussion: The Board discussed the concern that the court has when a guardian allows the incapacitated person to manage funds without court permission and the desire to allow the incapacitated person to manage funds in appropriate cases. The Board discussed whether the guardian should be able to make the decision without permission from the court when the amount of funds managed was small in relation to the incapacitated person’s estate.
 
The motion passed.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 409.2 as follows:
 
409.2 406.1 The guardian shall know and obey the law related to managing an incapacitated person's estate. Such knowledge shall include statutes relating to the investment of assets, restrictions imposed on investing and expenditures by RCW 11.88 and 11.92, and laws relating to employment, income, and taxes. The guardian shall hire competent professionals as appropriate and financially feasible to assure compliance with all statutes and regulations relating to the management of funds.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 409.7 as follows:
 
409.7 406.8 When it is likely that the incapacitated person’s estate will be exhausted, the guardian shall, as appropriate, make plans and take necessary steps to acquire public benefits on behalf of the incapacitated person. The guardian shall apply for all public and insurance benefits for which the incapacitated person is eligible.  When implementing necessary changes in the incapacitated person's lifestyle, the guardian shall seek to minimize the stress of any transition.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 409.12 as follows:
 
409.12 At the death of the incapacitated person, the guardian shall comply with RCW 11.88.150.
 
Discussion: The Board discussed whether it is necessary to quote the statute, but it was felt that the reference would be helpful to the non-lawyer guardian. 
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 409.13 as follows:
 
409.13 The guardian shall provide for insurance coverage, as appropriate and feasible, for guardianship property.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 410.1 as follows:
 
410.1 The guardian is entitled to reasonable compensation for services rendered on behalf of the incapacitated person. The guardian has a duty to conserve the estate of the incapacitated person. Accordingly, decisions to provide services and incur fees shall be made in such a way as to reflect this duty. Services requiring a minimal degree of training, skill and experience should be billed accordingly.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 410.2 as follows:
 
410.2 403.3 All compensation for the services and expenses of the guardian shall be documented, reasonable in amount, and incurred for the incapacitated person's welfare. The guardian shall not pay or advance himself/herself fees or expenses except as approved by the court.  The guardian shall review each of the following factors in determining the reasonableness of his/her fee:  
a. The necessity of the service;
b. The time required;
c. The degree of skill and experience required to perform the service;
d. The cost of any reasonable alternative.
 
The motion passed.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 410.3 as follows:
 
410.3 403.6 When requesting court approval, the guardian shall disclose all compensation, fees and expenses requested, charged, or received in a guardianship case to the court and parties entitled to notice. The guardian shall maintain contemporaneous time and billings records for services which shall state:
a. Date and time spent;
b. Service performed;
c. The identity and job classification of the person performing the service;
d. Expenses incurred;
e. Subject matter of conferences, staffing, or telephone calls of significant duration.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to adopt SOP 410.5 as follows:
 
410.5 If the guardian is also an attorney, billings shall be in accordance with RCW 11.92.180.
 
The motion passed unanimously.
 
A motion was made and seconded to make the effective date of the revised SOPs January 31, 2012. Discussion: The Board briefly discussed the need for education and training for CPGs about the new regulations, suggesting online trainings, all day trainings, etc. The motion passed.
 
Adjourn
Judge Lawler noted the next meeting will be on May 9, 2011 and will be a teleconference. Judge Lawler adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:00 pm

Respectfully submitted,

Judge Wickham
 
Board Approved: May 9, 2011
[1] Except in the event of a tie vote, the Chair does not vote on any motions before the Board.
[2] Within the proposed regulation amendments, additions are indicated by underlining and deletions indicated by strikethroughs.
[3] This regulation was re-numbered and is now 403.7
[4] This regulation was re-numbered and is now 403.8.1.
[5] This regulation was re-numbered and is now 403.8.2.
[6] This regulation was re-numbered and is now 403.8.3.
[7] Within the proposed regulation amendments, additions are indicated by underlining and deletions indicated by strikethroughs.
  

Privacy and Disclaimer Notices Sitemap

© Copyright 2025. Washington State Administrative Office of the Courts.

S5