(Senator Teresa Hughes)



1.                       Origin of the bill:

a.                     Who is the source of the bill?What person, organization, or governmental entity requested introduction?

            SB 1742 is co-sponsored by:

        The California Commission on Aging (Jose Garcia, 916-322-5630)

        The Estate Planning, Trust, and Probate Law section of the California State Bar Association.(Marc Hankin, Esq., 310-204-8989;†† or††;orLarry Doyle, Esq., 916-442-8018)

b.                     Has a similar bill been before either this session or a previous session of the Legislature?If so, please identify the session, bill number and disposition of the bill.

SB 163 (Hughes, 1999).SB 163 was approved by the Legislature but later vetoed by Governor Davis.His veto message and subsequent discussions with his staff indicated that he believed the proposed program should not be restricted to a pilot project, nor should it be funded by the state.Both of these concerns have been addressed in the drafting of SB 1742.

c.                     Has there been an interim committee report on the bill?

The Senate Subcommittee on Alzheimerís Disease and Related Disorders held an informational hearing on the financial abuse of mentally impaired elders on November 3, 1999.Panelists stressed the need for timely intervention to protect potential victims.

2.                       What is the problem or deficiency in the present law, which this bill seeks to remedy?

One of the tools the public guardian may use to halt abuse is the authority to freeze the assets of a potential victim, while further action is taken to protect the victim and the victim's assets.†† Under current law, the public guardian may take these steps only when the public guardian intends to become conservator of the victimís estate.If certain conditions are met, SB 1742 would allow the public guardian to take these protective steps, when his or her own appointment as conservator would not be an effective or appropriate use of resources.


This bill would also establish a procedure for law enforcement officers combating elder abuse to keep a record of the assets recovered by law enforcement officers (and others collaborating with them) for the benefit of the victims.


3.                       Has there been any support for this proposal?

Several law enforcement organizations and the City of Los Angeles supported SB 163 (which was vetoed last year, as indicated above).


4.                       Has there been any opposition to this bill?




STAFF PERSON TO CONTACT:†††† Jason Sterling916-322-4400