January 28, 2007-
THE TRUTH:
TPSA leaders misleading its members and the industry.
THE TRUTH:
The TPSA leadership has, for years, been on a relentless campaign to license and regulate
the industry. Nearly every legislative session for the last 20 years, they have endorsed the
filing of a licensing bill. Their original call to arms was a goal of statewide authority for
process servers and an end to county-by-county blanket orders; and they pursued licensing
as a means by which to achieve that goal. Each time, the legislature has seen fit to crush
their bills.
Just before last session, the Supreme Court proposed certification that, with little
government intervention, would give process servers the statewide authority they wanted
for years. This was to take effect February 1, 2005. But, in January of 2005, just days before
certification was to be enacted, TPSA leaders endorsed the filing of SB 165, a strict licensing
and regulation bill that designated the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation as the
agency responsible for overseeing the industry. Although this bill was filed as a two-year
bill, it would have been automatically switched to yearly renewal (and training) when it hit the
desk of the TDLR. Evidence suggests that at least two TPSA leaders attended a meeting
with TDLR officials wherein this switch was discussed; TPSA members were never told
about this meeting and only found out because industry watchdogs alerted the industry.
Many process servers, including TPSA members, were confused as to why TPSA leaders
would continue to support licensing after the statewide authority problem had been solved
by the Supreme Court’s certification program. Their efforts to “license & regulate” the
industry nearly ruined any chance of the simple certification program now in effect.
Ever since the end of the last session when industry watchdogs killed SB 165, TPSA leaders
have not given up on their goal of yearly training and other regulation. Below are a list of
misleading statements and other evidence that proves they have not given up on their desire
for full-blown regulation:
In 2005, immediately after SB 165 was killed, the TPSA President at the time, Lee Russell
(who endorsed the bill’s filing and testified for its passage), stooped to name calling referring
to those responsible for the bill’s death as “idiots”, “non-members” and “screaming
zealots.” In May of 2006, in a letter to the National Association of Professional Process
Servers conference in Austin, he did a 180 and proclaimed his appreciation that “…the
Legislature did us a favor by killing a bill that would have put process servers under a
general accrediting agency in the State [the TDLR]. By doing so the Supreme Court of
Texas picked up the ball and we are now being certified by the court to serve process in the
State.” He goes on to say, “The Court has declared that with seven hours training, and a
criminal background check, one may by authorized to serve process in all the counties of
the state. What a blessing this has been.”
The Supreme Court already had the ball and was running for a touchdown in the end zone
of statewide authority. The filing of SB 165 was what caused the fumble. If he is so thankful
for the outcome, why did he ever support the filing of the bill in the first place? If sincere, his
gratitude would make those responsible for killing the bill heroes of the industry, not idiots.
In June of 2006, in an email to the TPSA membership, Russell continues to deceive the
industry and writes, “Please believe me when I say that this association and its leadership
do not want or are they recommending any kind of fees, etc., to further entangle the
industry." He goes on to say, "I want everyone to know that no such bill has been
proposed, or will any such bill be proposed with the sanction of this association."
Knowing this was untrue, TPSA members who oppose licensing requested copies of the
2006 TPSA board meeting minutes which reflect extensive discussions with Russell in
attendance regarding a plan to file a bill at the upcoming legislative session. This included
meetings both before and after his statements in June. Now, that TPSA leaders have finally
unveiled their legislative agenda and their plan to file a bill, it becomes obvious that Russell
was clearly misleading the membership. Late in 2006, TPSA leaders urged the membership
to donate money to Senator Jeff Wentworth and Representative Will Hartnett, the co-
sponsors of SB 165. Despite Russell’s claim the he is glad SB 165 failed and his claim that
no bill was being planned, TPSA leaders have been planning to further regulate the industry
for months all the while misleading their own members.
THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA:
The new TPSA President, Carl Weeks, is also Chairman of the Supreme Court’s Process
Service Review Board. For nearly 18 months, he has had ample opportunity to propose
beneficial changes for the industry. In fact, several of the items on the TPSA legislative
agenda do not require legislation and could have been achieved through the Supreme Court
with the stroke of a pen. This agenda is nothing more than a smokescreen for the pro-
regulators’ true intent.
Item number seven explains it all. The Supreme Court has already submitted its legislative
appropriations request (LAR). This LAR, along with the LAR’s of all other Texas State
Agencies, Courts and Departments, goes into House Bill 1. In their LAR, the Supreme Court
is asking the Legislature to appropriate money to fund the PSRB. The TPSA’s bill will
provide the written legislation enabling the Supreme Court to collect that money by way of
fees to be paid by process servers. The passage of this legislation will not only give the
Court the ability to collect fees, it will also give the PSRB RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY!!! The
Legislature will find the money somewhere. Guess where... the pockets of private process
servers. The TPSA leadership is using members' money to enable regulation that will set up
a system by where those very members will be required to pay even more.
In conjunction with the LAR, the Court is proposing Misc. Docket No. 06-9141 a/k/a Rule 14.
This proves an intention to turn our simple certification program into full-blown regulation
fully supported by leaders of the TPSA. TPSA members have never been asked to vote on
this or other changes supported by the leadership like the plan to switch to yearly training
with more hours of class time. They have also not been asked to vote on issues opposed by
the leadership like on-line training.
Instead of concentrating on beneficial changes, like the some of the ones considered in the
TPSA’s legislative agenda, the PSRB has created a set of recommendations designed to
regulate and restrict the industry. If they are granted rule-making authority, they will enact
these recommendations thereby effectively circumventing the protection the legislature has
provided nearly every session for the last 18 years. TPSA membership dues and training
class fees are being used to pay an expensive lobbyist who will facilitate the passage of this
regulation.
THE ENEMY HAS INFILTRATED THE COMPOUND:
Carl Weeks is a former Williamson County Deputy Constable and remains a fully
commissioned peace officer. He has failed to represent the TPSA’s and the industry’s best
interests while serving as Chairman of the PSRB. He supports and helped create the PSRB
recommendations and spearheaded the change for yearly training. These
recommendations will help level the playing field for the constables.
When the PSRB recommendations were created, Weeks stated in a public PSRB meeting
that his personal opinion is that all process servers need yearly training and more hours of
class time. Since that time he has told TPSA members by email and/or newsletter that he
wants to “keep things as they are now.” How can he keep things as they are while
attempting to completely change the program? He is attempting to wear two different hats;
one as PSRB Chairman and one as TPSA President.
The bottom line is this: If a process server does not become convicted of any felony or
misdemeanor involving moral turpitude and keeps their training and renewal current every
three years, they should be able to remain certified. There is absolutely no evidence that
supports a need for additional regulation. Of the millions of papers served by thousands of
process servers, there are only a handful of legitimate complaints. There are no known
examples of process servers being convicted of any process service related crimes like
perjury, trespassing, assault, falsifying a government document, gutter service, etc. There is
no evidence that the industry is plagued with fraud. Even if there were some, it would be an
infinitesimal amount representing less than one thousands of a percent. Implying that fraud
and criminal activity are not well known because there is no system to track them is utterly
ridiculous; especially when it is used as an excuse to support regulation. This reasoning is
indicative of those who want regulation; it has always been based on suppositions and non-
existent problems. THEY HAVE NO HARD EVIDENCE!!!
All process servers ever really wanted was true statewide authority and an end to blanket
orders and case-by-case 103's. The pro-regulators are and have been taking advantage of
that desire. No matter what your position on the issues, take the time to get involved. Your
opinion counts. Write letters, make phone calls or send emails to your senator and
representative this session. Visit this site regularly for updates every Monday. Unlike the
pro-regulators, WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED!
All of the above is supported by information posted on the Texas Process Watch website. At
www.texasprocesswatch.com, you can view the Supreme Court’s proposal, the PSRB
recommendations and Carl Weeks’ letter proposing yearly training and more hours of class
time.
IF WE DO NOT CONTINUE TO PROTECT OUR INDUSTRY, THE PRO-REGULATORS WILL
BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR THE PSRB. THIS IS THE VERY
TYPE OF INDUSTRY REGULATION THE LEGISLATURE HAS REFUSED TO PASS FOR
NEARLY 20 YEARS.
View The Proposal & Sample Letters
View the Process Service Review Board Recommendations.