May 29, 2006
PRO-LICENSING GROUP APPLAUDS KILLING OF THEIR OWN BILL!
Process servers are shocked at an open letter submitted to the NAPPS
conference by the TPSA President.
In an open letter to the National Association of Professional Process Servers, the
President of the Texas Process Servers Association proclaims their good fortune when
a licensing bill they supported once again failed to become law. For the last several
sessions, a relatively unchanged bill has been endorsed by the T.P.S.A. leadership; and
the Texas Legislature has seen fit to kill it each time. The association's President, Lee
H. Russell, it's Vice-President, Carl Weeks, and other T.P.S.A. members testified in favor
of this most recent attempt, Senate Bill 165. This bill as introduced would have placed
the industry under the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation as its "general
accrediting agency."
Historically, the Texas Legislature has killed the licensing bills after their very first
public hearing recognizing they represent bad government. Late in 2004, in order to
end the disparity of county-by-county authorization to serve process in Texas, the
Supreme Court proposed a certification program for process servers; thus providing
the long-sought after "statewide authorization". The application for certification
required seven hours of training every three years, and a criminal background check.
This certification program was scheduled to begin February 1, 2005, and would have
authorized private process servers to serve ALL "WRITS." For this reason, for the first
time in history, SB 165 found the support of Texas Sheriffs and Constables. In an email
obtained through an open records request submitted by Texas Process Watch,
Constable Ron Hickman, a current member of the Process Server Review Board,
expressed a deep concern that this word "writs" would give private process servers
the authority to take possession of persons and property. Validating that concern,
Constable Hickman makes reference to one process service company that claimed to
have an internet evictions website up and running with moving and storage companies
waiting in the wings for the program's approval. The constables were faced with
supporting a licensing bill or suffering the consequences of the Supreme Court's
certification program.
Days before the certification program was to be enacted, the leadership of theT.P.S.A.,
with the constables blessing, endorsed the filing of SB 165. In response, the Court
postponed the enactment of their program until July 1st. Despite much support and
testimony by the T.P.S.A.'s leadership, SB 165 died in the House Calendars Committee.
While the T.P.S.A.'s leadership was announcing the bill's death through an official email
to their members (or shortly thereafter), it was quietly being attached as an amendment
to an ad valorem tax bill in the Senate. When this was discovered, several legislators
demanded the removal of the amendment.
The session ended without a licensing bill. The Supreme Court responded by enacting
their certification program removing the language that had coerced the constables into
supporting the licensing bill.
Even after the Legislature had adjourned, official T.P.S.A. emails referred to the process
servers who formed the grass roots effort that defeated SB 165 as "nay-sayers",
"screaming zealots" and "idiots." This included some of the T.P.S.A.'s own members
who disagree with the direction the current administration is leading the association.
Mr. Larry Adelstein, a T.P.S.A. member and former association president, worked
tirelessly examining SB 165 to determine exactly how the bill would have regulated the
industry. At one point, the House Judiciary Committee recognized Mr. Adelstein's
special qualifications and hand picked him to assist them in hammering out the details
of what appeared to be an inevitable licensing bill. He specifically opposed the efforts
of some who wanted to reduce our authority to serve several forms of civil process,
including all writs and possibly subpoenas. He also opposed the push to change the
licensing renewal from every two years to a yearly requirement.
How, therefore, could the Legislature have done the T.P.S.A. a favor by killing a bill the
T.P.S.A. leaders supported? They worked stringently to pass a licensing bill knowing
full well that the Supreme Court's certification program was guaranteed to be
implemented if the bill failed.
T.P.S.A. leaders, apparently dissatisfied with a near perfect "statewide blanket order"
created by the Texas Supreme Court, is now actively promoting changes through the
P.S.R.B. and its Chairman, Carl Weeks, to convert the certification program into
something that more resembles a license; the very thing President Russell is grateful to
the State Legislature for preventing.
Story by
Tod E. Pendergrass
Member, National Association of Professional Process Servers