June 24, 2007-
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO SENATE BILL 1305?
What TPSA Leaders Hope You Don’t Find Out
Leaders of the Texas Process Servers Association filed Senate Bill 1305 at the 80th Texas legislative session. About the
only thing TPSA members have been told is that the bill died in the House Calendars Committee. As reported in a previous
Texas Process Watch story, the bill had several so-called beneficial provisions. And, as reported, most would be removed
before the bill ever left the Senate.
Also reported in these stories was the fact that leaders of the TPSA made numerous empty promises in an effort to
convince process servers to join the association and donate money to their cause; money that would fatten the special
interest war chest. The final version of the bill looked something like this:
1. Access to gates communities. (REMOVED)
2. Defense to prosecution for trespassing. (REMOVED)
3. Substituted service at a private mailbox without an order. (REMOVED)
4. Substituted service at a residence on the first attempt without an order.
(THEY NEVER EVEN PUT THIS ONE IN THE BILL!)
5. Requires returns to be signed under a penalty of perjury instead of before a Notary Public.
(THEY FAILED TO TELL YOU, AS A REQUIREMENT, THIS PROVISION WAIVES YOUR FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS!)
6. Assault on a process server same as assault on a public servant.
(INCONSEQUENTIAL, THIS PROVISION OFFERS NO ADDITIIONAL PROTECTION FOR PROCESS SERVERS.
ASSAULT IS ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW.)
7. Allow the Texas Supreme Court to assess and collect fees.
(THIS ONE REMAINED AND WOULD HAVE COST THE INDUSTRY NEARLY A HALF MILLION DOLLARS.)
TPSA leaders claimed no. 7 was necessary for reimbursement of PSRB member’s travel expenses. The PSRB only needed
$5001.00 for reimbursement for three years worth of travel. So, from where did the need for an additional $400,000.00
come? As usual, the real story is not what TPSA leaders said, it’s what they didn’t say.
On May 18, 2007, TPSA President, Carl Weeks, sent out an email exclaiming his “great news” that SB 1305 finally passed
out of the House Civil Practices Committee. He instructed members to contact the House Calendars Committee and
express their support of the bill. There was just one problem. Members were never told that most of the “beneficial”
provisions had already been stripped from the bill long before it ever arrived at Civil Practices. Even those who took the
initiative to go to the TPSA web site would only find the original “introduced version” of the bill the way it appeared before the
provisions were stripped. In fact, there were four different versions of the bill but the TPSA web site never displayed any
version other than the one introduced. Nowhere in Mr. Weeks’ email did he inform the membership that they were being
asked to call in and support a version of SB 1305 that was very different from the one he sold them in TPSA meetings and
none of the TPSA leaders were talking about the fact that the beneficial provisions had been removed. Even some of the
board members were unaware of this development. So, what were process servers supposed to be getting for their money
and why weren’t those TPSA leaders who knew the facts being completely forthcoming?
If you received Mr. Weeks’ email, you know he was very informative about how successful he was in walking the halls of the
Capitol and passing out a written information piece to all 150 representatives (a piece that related to a very different version
of SB 1305.) He even informs members how to go to the Legislature’s website and locate their representative. But he failed
to say they would be calling in to support a bill that had been drastically changed and would do very little for them; a bill that
may have done more for the board he chairs than the industry he supposedly represents.
He writes, “Let’s don’t let the two process servers who oppose this bill and the Supreme Court PSRB kill this bill for all
process servers across Texas.” Mr. Weeks must be psychic. He must have the phones, fax machines and computers of
every office in the Capitol tapped. How else could he possibly know only two people opposed his bill?
The truth is, hundreds of people made calls and sent emails in opposition to SB 1305, many from his own members. More
importantly, they knew which version of the bill they were calling about. And, as provisions disappeared, so did the bill’s
support. He continues, “They are telling legislators the Supreme Court Certification program is illegal and has no authority
to exist!” Mr. Weeks appears to be a real pro when it comes to spin. Legislators were being alerted to illegal actions. And,
“no authority to exist” was being thrown around. However, it was not the “program” that was accused of being illegal and it
was not the “program” that was said to have no authority to exist. Opposed were the Process Server Review Board and Mr.
Weeks as its chairman. An effort to get rid of Mr. Weeks and the entire PSRB was being played out. Opponents of SB 1305
want to keep certification and the statewide authority it provides, but dismantle the PSRB. Once dismantled, there would
have been no need for process servers to shell out nearly a half million dollars. Opponents are convinced that the PSRB is
bad news for the industry and free enterprise in general. They believe the program (and statewide authority) can exist
without a board to oversee it; especially this board. His comments appear to be little more than scare tactics designed to
frighten process servers into thinking “certification” was at risk. The only things at risk were the rights, freedoms and the
wallets of TPSA members and all process servers across the state.
His final sentence represents a paradox. He says, “Do your part to keep the Statewide Process Server Certification
program funded to exist, in place and working.” TPSA members need to ask their president these questions. If the program
is working, why is he promoting and supporting its major overhaul? Why wasn’t the need for $400,000.00 included in the
initial program back in 2005? Why is he pushing for yearly training and a myriad of other changes to our simple certification
program? And, now that SB 1305 has failed, how is it that the certification program remains in place? This alone is proof
that process servers narrowly avoided being ripped off by SB 1305. Take away the "beneficial provisions" and this bill
would have created a private process service “slush fund.”
The next time TPSA members heard from their leaders was on June 19th with the publication of the association’s
newsletter, “The Server.” In his “Presidents Message” Mr. Weeks writes, “As many of you know Sen. Wentworth of San
Antonio filed SB 1305 that addressed many important issues relative to our industry. We once again owe Senator
Wentworth a debt of gratitude for carrying legislation that is important to each of us as process servers and the entire
process serving industry.”
It is true that Senator Wentworth carried SB 1305. Though a matter of opinion, it is also true that SB 1305, as initially
introduced, addressed several so-called “important issues relative to our industry.” But again, this passage could be
considered “deception by omission.” What Mr. Weeks doesn’t tell members is that Senator Wentworth himself voted to
remove most of the “beneficial” provisions after it was assigned to his committee. So, what exactly does the industry owe
Senator Wentworth? I can see how Mr. Weeks could be so appreciative. The provision allowing the Supreme Court to
assess and collect fees from process servers to run the board he chairs was conveniently left in. Those fees, if not stopped
by anti-regulation forces, would have enabled Mr. Weeks and other PSRB members to execute their plan to completely
overhaul the certification program and take it from simple certification to full-blown regulation.
He continues, “It was hard to believe that a few process servers who did not like the statewide certification of process
servers by the Supreme Court of Texas could be so troubling to a great piece of legislation.” Again, his tactics appear to
disparage anyone who disagrees with him. Opponents of SB 1305 approve of certification because of the statewide
authority it provides. They have worked to protect it from the changes Mr. Weeks is planning. It’s the PSRB that people are
opposed to. What does he expect after all the examples of the PSRB absolutely running over undeserving process
servers? More importantly, what does he expect after all the decisions that have been made without polling TPSA
members? Additionally, to which version of SB 1305 is he referring as ”a great piece of legislation?” SB 1305 was never a
great piece of legislation and, after it was ripped to shreds by Wentworth’s committee, it became one of the most potentially
damaging pieces of legislation ever written for process servers. It’s no wonder so many constables supported it.
Let’s not forget the fact that the Supreme Court could have made most of the “beneficial” changes long ago under their rule
making authority, without legislation and without wasting the thousands of dollars TPSA members shelled out. But, Mr.
Weeks, as president of the TPSA and chairman of the PSRB, has never once suggested it.
Next is Mr. Weeks’ claim that, “Your legislative team led by lobbyist Keith Oakley, and Legislative Chair Wes Conroy have
worked hard on a number of other important bills of interest to our industry, bills relating to E-filing for JP Courts, service on
financial institutions and many others.” Mr. Weeks could be attempting to divert attention from the failure of SB 1305 by
taking credit for the success of other bills that made it to the Governor’s desk. TPSA leaders are not responsible for any of
these bills. It’s easy to claim victory after the fact, however, he offers no explanation as to why these other bills were never
presented to the membership. Members were evidently never informed about efforts to promote any legislation other than
SB 1305. And, if money from the TPSA coffers was being used to promote other legislation, why weren’t members
consulted and given a chance to weigh in on those issues? Why weren’t they, at least, informed? Why is it that TPSA
leaders consistently fail to involve the membership? Why do they treat members as if they cannot think for themselves?
TPSA members should know that Mr. Weeks has attained a position no other person in Texas is allowed to hold. No other
regulating body allows an officer of a trade association to also serve on the board that regulates that industry; and for good
reason. No one who is involved in industry training is allowed to also sit on the regulating board. And, no process server
should be comfortable with a leader who supports and promotes concepts that would restrict the industry and benefit the
competition… the constables. TPSA members should demand to know why so many constables supported SB 1305.
Process servers, especially TPSA members, must realize that as long as they keep financially supporting the poor
leadership of the TPSA, they will continue to receive poor results. Process servers do not need oversight from the
government. That responsibility falls on themselves and the attorneys who hire them. They do not need someone to make
decisions for them. They do not need government issued badges, id. cards or policing. Process servers do not need
negative constable influence or the threat of having their careers unjustly damaged or destroyed. And, process servers DO
NOT need the PSRB. Process servers need to remember that this is America. This country was founded on the principle of
moving away from government oppression. In America, some believe the first duty of government is to protect the
powerless from the powerful. The PSRB contradicts this concept. Process servers DO NOT have a voice on the PSRB. For
the first 21 months, there was no protection for process servers and no recourse for those who have been railroaded.
Anyone revoked will go out of business waiting for the limited protection the newly enacted Rule 14 might provide. Free
enterprise demands that regulation only be applied when a need exists, not because some yahoo thinks it’s a “good idea.”
The PSRB is a stacked deck against process servers. Hasn't anyone ever thought that the PSRB should be empaneled by a
majority of process servers? I have said it before and I will say it again; regulation is only appropriate when the public
health, safety or welfare is in immediate peril or when an industry is plagued with fraud or criminal acts. Private process
service in Texas does not fit this criteria. This is not something I made up, IT IS GOVERNMENT CODE! Mr. Weeks and other
pro-regulators have little or no evidence to support their ideals. "Professionalizing an industry” that already smokes the
competition to shame is nothing more than an excuse for the pursuit of a hidden agenda. Moreover, the constables should
have no voice in how our industry is run or where it’s headed. They should concentrate on improving their reputation in the
legal community instead of trying to restrict the competition. We must all fight to protect these principals.
Mr. Weeks is a former Williamson County deputy constable and remains a fully commissioned peace officer. He is a
member of the Texas Police Association, Federal Criminal Investigators Association, Texas Municipal Police Association,
Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas and is a Certified Computer Forensics Investigator. He supports many
rule changes that appear to restrict the industry and benefit the constables (see PSRB recommendations.) He supported
licensing for process servers and full-blown industry regulation. He testified right along side constables for Senate Bill 165
last session (see the SB 165 witness list 1 & SB 165 witness list 2). And, he promoted and fully supported Senate Bill 1305,
also supported by constables, this session (see the SB 1305 witness list.) He openly states that anyone who has been
charged with a crime but not finally convicted is due to “good lawyers.” So much for innocence until proved guilty. How
much more evidence do we need to see that Carl Weeks is NOT a private process server. How is it that a person with
credentials like Mr. Weeks has been allowed to assume the driver’s seat of a private process servers' association?
I am calling for the immediate removal of Carl Weeks as President of the Texas Process Servers Association for gross
insubordination, conflicts of interest and conflicts of loyalties. The only way that will happen is if TPSA members travel to
Austin on June 29th and demand it. This includes using the TPSA's own bi-laws to make it happen. I have tried to join this
association and lead the charge in retaking control but the leadership has unjustly denied my membership simply because I
disagree with them. The real reason I am being shut out is because they are absolutely terified of the influence I might have
on their comfy positions. It’s up to the current membership to take control of what is supposed to be a member owned
organization.
I am also calling for the dismantling of the Process Server Review Board for unauthorized and possibly illegal acts to the
detriment of individual process servers, the industry as a whole and those seeking approval as training course instructors.
The PSRB has absolutely acted without authority on occasions too numerous to list. They have violated the constitutional
rights of citizens and even the very orders that created the board and the program. One way that could happen is if process
servers, and the attorneys that hire them, flood the Supreme Court with complaints. Another way would be to file a federal
lawsuit. Either way, something’s got to give.
The certification program is in jeopardy, but not from the opponents of regulation. It’s in jeopardy from those who are willing
to say and do just about anything to completely change the certification program and the progress it has achieved towards
statewide authorization. There is nothing criminal about Mr. Weeks' point of view. That's all it is, his point of view. But, the
association is not called the Texas Carl Weeks Association and the PSRB is not called the Carl Weeks Review Board for a
reason.
Story by:
Tod Pendergrass
Director, Texas Process Watch
(and the only process server who personally testified in opposition to SB 1305)
Reference information:
“TPSA LEADERS ACCUSED OF DECEIVING INDUSTRY”
“HOUSE CIVIL PRACTICES COMMITTEE NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU”
“HOW DID WE GET HERE”