December 18, 2006- (UPDATED)
WHY JOIN THE CERTIFIED CIVIL PROCESS
SERVERS ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS?
The CCPSAT is committed to:
- Opposing the TPSA's GOAL OF A YEARLY TRAINING REQUIREMENT!
- Protecting Private Process Servers' Rights and Freedoms
- Protecting the Free Enterprise of the Industry
- Achieving On-Line Training and Continuing Education at Little or No Cost
(EVERY 3 YEARS!)
- Protecting the Current Certification Program Without the Addition of
Intrusive and Unnecessary Government Regulation
- Protecting the Industry From the Negative Influences of Special Interest
Groups
- Disseminating Rule Changes, Important Case Law and Other Information
Pertinent to the Industry
- Opposing the Process Service Review Board's Goal of Regulatory Status
- Opposing the PSRB's Goal of Yearling Training and Other Unnecessary and
Intrusive Recommendations
- FREE Membership
- FREE Advertising
WHY SHOULD PROCESS SERVERS ABANDON THE TPSA?
There are many reasons to avoid the Texas Process Servers Association like the plague, but, it's
not the members who are to blame; it's the leadership. Members are only to blame for not taking
control of their association and demanding that they be allowed to vote on issues that directly
affect their businesses. In an effort to "make it better", TPSA leaders are supporting the Process
Service Review Board's recommendations which will completely destroy what the Supreme Court
has created. Most contested is their support of switching to a yearly continuing education
requirement and the addition of more hours of class time.
Rules relating to the service of process in Texas have changed only 3 or 4 times in the last 20
years. Evolving case law does not require hours and hours of class time on a yearly basis and can
be easily disseminated through the internet. These are the very reasons the Supreme Court set
training at seven hours every three years; it is more than adequate! The TPSA leaders are
interested in selling as many training courses as possible to as many people as possible. They then
use the profits to pay an expensive lobbyist to push for even more industry regulation. Their
excessive regulation is designed to control competition, but, it is having the opposite effect; a
flood of new servers is entering the market at an alarming rate which is threatening established
process service companies.
The TPSA leadership has failed its members and the industry on numerous occasions.
EXAMPLE NO. 1
For years, leaders of what was the only process server association in Texas, the Texas Process
Servers Association, told its members and the industry of their goal to achieve statewide authority
to serve process. Process servers and attorneys alike agreed and the association grew. However,
neither the industry nor Texas attorneys knew what was going on behind the scenes. The
association's war chest, made fat with membership dues and profits from the TPSA training class,
was being used as a slush fund to quietly push for full-blown licensing and regulation; statewide
authority was only a smokescreen. Members were told their involvement at the Legislature was
unnecessary and that the association's officers would represent their interests and "take care of
everything"; members were urged not to come to the Capitol.
Nearly every session for the last twenty years, this "pro-regulation group" has filed licensing bills
and each time the Legislature killed them in the very first hearing because the bills represent bad
legislation. The Legislature has protected the industry by preventing this unnecessary regulation.
Process servers from the industry routinely testified AGAINST the bills.
EXAMPLE NO. 2
At the last legislative session, the pro-regulation group enlisted the help of the Texas Supreme
Court, a very powerful and influential force at the Legislature. It is believed, with the help of some
pro-constable judges, TPSA leaders were able to convince the Court to propose a certification
program that would force the constables to support licensing for the first time in legislative history.
In October of 2004, the Supreme Court did just that. They wrote a certification program for process
servers that sounded too good to be true. As initially written, private process servers would not
only achieve statewide authority with little government intervention, they would also be able to
serve additional types of process traditionally served only by constables; namely, writs of
attachment and forcible entry and detainer writs (FED'S), among others. As evidenced by e-mails
submitted to the Court by constables from around the State, this was inconceivable. Even process
servers were confused about this additional authority because the industry as a whole never
wanted to get into that line of work. So, why did the Court make such a proposal? It would
convince the constables, who routinely opposed the licensing of the industry, to support the next
surprise.
EXAMPLE NO. 3
Just days before the Court was set to enact certification on February 1, 2005, Senate Bill 165 was
filed at the 79th Texas Legislature with the blessing and full support of TPSA leaders. With the
highly anticipated, extremely beneficial and well received certification program before them, these
pro-regulators filed SB 165 knowing full well the Court had already provided the long sought after
statewide authority (with little government oversight). Process servers around the State were
shocked to find out that certification was being put on hold. Many, including TPSA members, were
confused as to why the association's leadership would opt for intrusive licensing and regulation for
its own industry when the Supreme Court was set to give them the very statewide authority they
had for years so desperately wanted.
TPSA leaders solicited donations from its members for the bill's author, Senator Jeff Wentworth, and
its sponsor, Representative Will Hartnett. Luckily, industry watchdogs, with the help of key
legislators, were able to again stop this attempt to over-regulate the industry. When the session
was over, the Court enacted certification removing the wording that gained the constables'
support. The Court obviously never intended for private process servers to be given authority to
take possession of persons and property; with the bill's death, the bluff had been called.
EXAMPLE NO. 4
Through an open records request submitted by Texas Process Watch, it was discovered that,
although SB 165 had been filed indicating a two year renewal, it would have changed automatically
to a yearly requirement when it hit the desk of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.
This inevitable change meant TPSA leaders stood to double their take on the sale of their training
class (the only class authorized under SB 165.) Also uncovered was evidence suggesting that at
least two TPSA leaders were aware of this information but withheld it from their members and the
industry. TPSA leaders have not given up on this goal!
EXAMPLE NO. 5
After the bill's death, in an apparent attempt to save face in light of their failure, TPSA leaders acted
overjoyed exclaiming their gratitude that "the Legislature did them a favor" by killing the bill they
worked so hard to pass; a bill they fully endorsed and supported right up to its final moments. Their
support of SB 165 nearly ruined any chance of certification. Despite these deceptive comments (or
maybe because of them), TPSA members began leaving the association in droves. Membership
dropped by more than half from 800 to less than 400 in approximately one year's time.
EXAMPLE NO. 6
While consistently telling members that no legislation was being planned for the next session, a
look at TPSA board meeting minutes proves just the opposite. At one point, leaders were openly
contradicting each other; one committing to legislation and another vowing to oppose it. The Board
of Directors have, in fact, been discussing and planning for another attempt to regulate the industry
at the upcoming session including an effort to keep their plans secret. They have also kept their
expensive lobbyist on the payroll since the last session ended at a rate of $1500.00 per month. This
translates into the waste of the dues of twenty members per month. The current association
President, Carl Weeks, openly told the membership he intends to keep the program as it is. This
statement, however, completely contradicts his actions. As PSRB Chairman, he spearheaded and
fully supports the current PSRB recommendations which would do everything but keep the program
unchanged. This includes, among other things, increased hours of education and a switch to yearly
training from the current requirement of every three years as mentioned above.
EXAMPLE NO. 7
Another smokescreen can be found in the latest TPSA legislative message. Leaders are finally
admitting they are planning legislation but are only telling part of the story. They are only admitting
to changes that will gain new members and existing members' support like, gaining access to gated
communities, upgrading the offense of assault on a process server and removing the requirement
of having returns of service notarized, etc. However, they don't mention their support of the
Supreme Court's plan to transform the PSRB and the certification program into a regulatory entity.
Also absent is Mr. Weeks' intentions to require yearly training and his support of all of the PSRB
recommendations. They are again soliciting their members to donate their hard earned money to
the very same legislators who attempted to pass SB 165; the same two who TPSA leaders were glad
failed at getting that bill passed. This time, their goal is to make the PSRB a regulatory body
wherein they can make any rule they want without legislative approval thereby effectively
circumventing the protection of the Legislature. Also not in the TPSA message is the fact that the
Supreme Court has already filed its Legislative Appropriations Request. The Court plans to place
process servers under the same guidelines as that of court reporters and guardians ad litem.
Representative Hartnett (SB 165 sponsor) is the legislative go-to-guy for the Court's Judicial
Council and will be spearheading this goal. If successful, the PSRB will be transformed into a
regulatory body capable of enacting the very regulation sought in SB 165 at the last session. Once
the PSRB is legitimized as a regulatory board, the Court can change the option of a written order of
the court with the stroke of the pen thereby requiring anyone who wishes to serve process to
become certified; TRUE INDUSTRY REGULATION!!!
EXAMPLE NO. 8
An unknown leader convinced TPSA members in San Antonio to sign a petition to the Judges of
Bexar County urging them to quit signing Rule 103 Orders for non-certified servers. The letter
misinterpreted the Supreme Court's rule and back fired causing much embarrassment to the
association. Bexar County Judges ignored the letter and continue to sign orders for non-certified
process servers. Andrew Watson, the TPSA area Director at the time, has denied authoring the
letter.
There are numerous other examples of the TPSA's poor leadership. Help us protect the free
enterprise of the industry by joining the CCPSAT for FREE. Please have all your office staff join as
individual members and encourage your clients to join as supporting members. Your involvement
is essential. We will alert you to important information and letter writing campaigns as needed.
Rule changes and evolving case lase will also be disseminated to help avoid the yearly training
requirement. No tricks, no lies, no misinformation. Just honest leadership.
Sincerely,
Tod E. Pendergrass
Director, The Certified Civil Process Servers Association of Texas
BACK TO TEXAS PROCESS WATCH HOME
BACK TO CCPSAT HOME