[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6382726,"mediaKeyId","2126160-0e4bb0df0fd30c2ee70ca89024e68ad9","parentId",2126160,"title","Committee hears wide-ranging testimony on proposed guardianship office and $18.3M funding package","audioSeconds",3946,"startMs",4193000,"endMs",8139000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2126160-0e4bb0df0fd30c2ee70ca89024e68ad9&start=4193&end=8139","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2126160-0e4bb0df0fd30c2ee70ca89024e68ad9/thumbnail_4193000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6382726/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-wide-ranging-testimony-on-proposed-guardianship-office-and-183M-funding-package","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6382726-c8060687c808a07dcf9bf35a9613e474/orig.mp4?Expires=1771149810&Signature=mjMuMlqaJ7nOCJefKw4bAepnbV9LUtpsw-VYaNk~E8tNpghFpi4QiKgQM9tVoUJ5BHiCBZdTKPS~viWKoy5Evssl00~2eGEOb3x-fLPAoa~LLp5CrqIO-XoYTYIfZ2DPPaobYkSU72yrik6xOqPypiACWVzE8EmA-k49RJpgL91XJnmI0dVazCH1E0DqMqgtk1em6coBqFgDaGamfca02ise2F7dIaMY2BuOz5ZJZoO-Tu-lgVOi0GCKTUgb-etmmFErOKeMavI43lgYrZJn~kG0HRIl-nbncYBqshTLkGiw~tGdxd9ars3VeD36xUUao2qxu0W325GhNohcS3Zoyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Judiciary, ND","date","2025-01-13T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Judiciary Committee continued hearings on Senate Bill 2029, a major proposal to centralize guardianship oversight in North Dakota and consolidate multiple guardianship programs and appropriations into a single structure.

Judge Phelan (testifying for the court system) described the proposal’s goals: create an Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship (OGC), establish licensing and oversight, address long waiting lists for guardianship services and standardize funding across programs. He told the committee the state is seeing large and rising demand: Catholic Charities’ waiting list for developmental‑disability (DD) corporate guardianship had grown to about 142 people, and total active adult guardianship cases state‑wide rose from 3,482 in 2023 to 3,669 at the end of 2024. The judge explained the bill’s proposed line items and funding rationale: past (public) guardianship funding was increased in 2023 and remains under pressure, and the 2025–27 request for past funding is $8,600,000 based on an $18‑per‑day reimbursement rate (a $1 increase over current levels). The panel was also shown a proposed DD guardianship line item of $6,835,136 to serve about 760 DD adults, which would incorporate the existing waiting list.

Catholic Charities and other providers described operational concerns. Donna Bezanski, program director for Catholic Charities’ corporate guardianship program, said corporate guardianship is “guardian of last resort” and observed that consolidating all guardianship appropriations into one $18.3 million pool could inadvertently shift funds away from direct services unless the OGC’s administrative budget is set aside. Guardianship providers and the Guardianship Association of North Dakota urged a phased approach and asked that current funding streams such as PASS (public guardian/conservator indigent funding) remain in place for the next biennium to allow a smoother transition.

Provider groups raised other concerns: the proposed review board and investigative counsel could require legal responses and subpoenas that increase costs for guardianship agencies; professional guardians warned the bill as drafted may discourage providers from remaining in the field. Margo Hout, president of the Guardianship Association of North Dakota, asked the committee to slow the timeline and consider a pilot program, saying members support the concept of oversight but need clarity on contracts, licensing, rules and funding flows before implementation.

Hospitals also testified to system costs. Melissa Hower, general counsel for the North Dakota Hospital Association, said six large hospitals reported multiple patient days where a medically ready patient remained in a hospital bed only because a guardian was needed; the association estimated an average cost of about $1,417 per day and roughly $1.9 million in avoidable costs for the six hospitals combined. She asked the committee to give the bill a due‑pass recommendation to promote a more efficient guardianship system.

Human service zone officials sought tailored treatment: Kim Jacobson, a human service zone director, requested that human service zones or zone directors be exempted from certain OGC provisions because zones are already the department’s designees for many custodial responsibilities.

Committee members and the judge discussed timeline and rulemaking. Judge Phelan said court rules and administrative steps are being prepared so the OGC could begin operations quickly if the bill passes, but several testifiers asked that the committee consider a phased implementation (for example, a pilot or keeping existing funding lines in place for a transition biennium) to avoid disrupting services.

No final committee vote on SB 2029 occurred during the hearing; the committee closed testimony and said it will continue discussion and return to the bill in a later meeting. Several witnesses asked the committee to preserve funding for direct guardianship services and to require robust guardian training and clear rules before starting new oversight activities.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary Jan 13, 2025 II","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday heard more than four hours of testimony on SB 2029, which would create an Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship and consolidate multiple guardianship programs and funds.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28907,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6382734,"Committee rejects amendment and ultimately votes to not pass change to supervised probation for class B misdemeanors",381,3175000,3556000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2126160-0e4bb0df0fd30c2ee70ca89024e68ad9&start=3175&end=3556","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2126160-0e4bb0df0fd30c2ee70ca89024e68ad9/thumbnail_3175000.jpg","/articles/6382734/North-Dakota/Committee-rejects-amendment-and-ultimately-votes-to-not-pass-change-to-supervised-probation-for-class-B-misdemeanors","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6382734-699c8c8726323a88e4ab074d2817a776/orig.mp4?Expires=1771149810&Signature=XiC-foAnCE2tibopv3h8GARcj7-wCQJXUVJVo~zuXaKAmP9PRzMXomJincBZHx7y19bJDPa3vHERNMZ5bd0LPMA-HCqOAFDeNtCr-t01p0dHAOah1I-luwKiM-zHyk718OOOL3J2TvuVVhiSBI0bvU2rkCeCt0qXrTvS1XGTrDp0nBTCWlkTHVAXOkZklT-4YAQUhAQjQgV9QR9YYiU7aaYLrDgvi~tRi7Byb7JTv5wWrUpoe98hl3t2yDQcyLRRG2mAdCQy-QlDqTGu1SkKTr~t~ovutABAYWWOE7FtrMYk2KzqerGoDhtcyX9j-0ElthUqTAkCa5B9un2O-kEa9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee reopened consideration of Senate Bill 2111, which would limit or change supervised probation for class B misdemeanors.

Senator Castaneda moved an amendment to exclude class B misdemeanor cases “which do not involve instances of physical harm or bodily injury.” The amendment was defeated in committee on a 3–4 vote, leaving the bill in its unamended form.

Senators debated whether removing supervised probation as an option would constrain judicial discretion. Several members warned the change would eliminate a sentencing option for judges in class B cases. Senator Lueck said he initially supported the bill but, after hearing how the change would remove one sentencing tool from judges, moved to change his vote. The committee ultimately moved a do‑not‑pass recommendation for the bill.

Because the amendment failed and members expressed concerns about removing court supervision as a sentencing option, the committee decided not to advance the bill at this time.","The Judiciary Committee revisited Senate Bill 2111 (supervised probation for class B misdemeanors). An amendment to exclude cases involving physical harm failed on a 3–4 vote; after discussion members shifted to a do‑not‑pass recommendation on the unamended bill.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6382737,"Senate panel advances bill tightening definition of groups that may run charitable gaming",1903,242000,2145000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2126160-0e4bb0df0fd30c2ee70ca89024e68ad9&start=242&end=2145","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2126160-0e4bb0df0fd30c2ee70ca89024e68ad9/thumbnail_242000.jpg","/articles/6382737/North-Dakota/Senate-panel-advances-bill-tightening-definition-of-groups-that-may-run-charitable-gaming","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6382737-13a19ddc23d0464df229dcb3d71ef8d2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771149810&Signature=E6U7ZccHCI7QutA0oHWRzzjtoIWMW3~IEJsYcwfSr6yp4z66I~aMm3ZOOjD7CuzHR02lx9jGW2aX3dpNqbHUYEoAbMbijQC8-plmFZA2Ec1~d6KCvMADKjnLyGNNr2jlbd3QMmtLndL8qn2LHIOn7mvKBG84vSYFlTKSlnkrJ1ugzc9vaqCLGst~k0ZKid-~oolO183op6MIwKGdo~Kr0yti6mql-J-SwOm7cjqlUKNQv1n6kFlqqioDINSMYlq0Jv7zmleP1jBFKFUBAeBmrUOLBTHotygDJamCbJQmpeYXXBOH5t1pa55YmAxvPfAZPsEaKP-Hse4YAIMV1OIJmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday continued hearings on Senate Bill 2035, which would amend who may conduct charitable gaming in North Dakota.

Proponents of maintaining the current, broader definition clashed with some senators who said the law has expanded beyond voters’ original intent. The bill drew testimony from the North Dakota Gaming Alliance, municipal and tourism groups, youth sports organizations and the attorney general’s gaming director.

Scott Meske, representing the North Dakota Gaming Alliance, said the alliance opposed SB 2035 because it could unintentionally cut off small community organizations that use gaming proceeds to support local programs. “I just want to make sure that the definitions that you decide, we don't hurt those organizations,” Meske said, urging the committee to adopt a grandfather clause for organizations authorized to conduct gaming today.

Corey Peterson, appearing for the North Dakota League of Cities and a former Horace mayor, said many cities rely on gaming revenue for economic development and tourism promotion; he warned the bill could remove a proven funding source for some local programs. “These convention and visitor bureaus operate charitable gaming as a way to raise that funding,” Peterson said, and removing that source could force programs to be reduced or eliminated.

Laura Locker, executive director of the Economic Development Association of North Dakota, also urged a “do not pass” recommendation, saying more than 80 economic development and tourism organizations across the state rely heavily on charitable gaming funds.

Deb McDaniel, director of the Gaming Division in the Office of the Attorney General, told senators the state constitution (Article 11, Section 25) allows the Legislature to authorize “bona fide nonprofit veterans, charitable, educational, religious, and fraternal organizations, civic and service clubs, or such other public-spirited organizations as it may recognize” to conduct games of chance when proceeds are devoted to public-spirited uses. McDaniel said the law already defines many categories, but the phrase “public-spirited organization” has been used to include a broad set of groups — from tourism and economic development to amateur sports — and asked the committee to clarify which groups the Legislature intends to permit.

Several speakers representing youth and amateur sports organizations urged the committee not to remove amateur youth athletics from eligibility. Richard Stidler of MATPEC wrestling club said his organization has used gaming proceeds to send athletes to national and international competitions and to support community giving; he said removing eligibility would “pull the rug out” from organizations that have built budgets around charitable gaming.

Committee members debated whether the bill appropriately narrows the definition or instead removes funding from local programs that serve broad public interests. Senator Paulson said he supports narrowing instances of gaming tied to economic development, while others cautioned that the state should protect long‑standing community programs.

After discussion, Senator Murdall moved a due-pass recommendation on SB 2035; the motion was seconded by Senator Lueck. The committee voted to give the bill a due-pass recommendation, and Chairwoman Larson asked Senator Myrtle to carry the bill to the floor.

What this means going forward: the bill will move forward but is likely to face amendments in the House and further scrutiny in session committees. Several testifiers and senators signaled interest in drafting clarifying language, grandfathering existing licensees or tightening definitions of “public‑spirited organizations.”","The Senate Judiciary Committee continued its hearing on Senate Bill 2035, hearing wide opposition from gaming, city and nonprofit representatives who warned the bill’s definition changes could cut funding for local economic development, tourism and youth programs. After debate the committee voted to give SB 2035 a due-pass recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears wide-ranging testimony on proposed guardianship office and $18.3M funding package

Committee rejects amendment and ultimately votes to not pass change to supervised probation for class B misdemeanors

Senate panel advances bill tightening definition of groups that may run charitable gaming