JUNE 29, 2010-
OPEN LETTER TO NAPPS OUTGOING PRESIDENT,
PAUL TAMAROFF
Mr. Paul Tamaroff
Immediate past president, NAPPS
via open letter
Re: The purpose of NAPPS
Mr. Tamaroff,
I am very disappointed in your attitude and some of your actions during your term
as president of NAPPS. Some of your comments were an affront to me personally
and to the core principles on which NAPPS was founded.
My main concern can be summed up in one question:
Are you for or against protecting Rules 4 & 45 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as currently written?
NAPPS is a member owned association and the membership has not to my
knowledge indicated a desire to amend Rules 4 or 45, FRCP. Your position on
licensing and regulation is the polar opposite of the concepts contained in these
rules. I find it disingenuous of you to give lawmakers the impression that we, as a
national association, support laws that are diametrically opposed to those
concepts.
NAPPS by-laws are entirely too vague to support or oppose the pursuit of licensing
and regulation. You are entitled to your personal opinion on this issue, but, as a
representative of our industry, you have no right to promote that position as official
NAPPS’ policy.
Your comments about Texas and Arizona demonstrate just how little you really
understand about how regulation in general is supposed to be implemented in any
state and even less about how the Texas certification program came into existence.
Licensing and regulation are appropriate only for the purpose
of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public; not
for the purposes of controlling competition or attaining a
credential.
To say that the certification programs in Texas and Arizona are “good legislation” is
incorrect. Neither are “good” and only one was created by legislation. That you
haven’t a clue as to how different these two programs are is why you are not
qualified to speak for the industry. The Texas program is nothing like Arizona’s and
NAPPS members deserve leadership that can understand why.
You also claim that NAPPS and the NAPPS’ state chartered association, the TPSA,
are directly responsible for the current certification program in Texas. Neither
NAPPS nor the TPSA had anything to do with the current Texas certification
program. With the help of a legislative grant from NAPPS, TPSA leaders have
pursued full-blown licensing and regulation each and every session.
(correction: NAPPS leaders claim they have not made any legislative grants to the
TPSA. This statement is disputed and being investigated. Even if no grants were
made, it only supports the fact that NAPPS had nothing to do with the certification
program in Texas.)
Just days before the Texas Supreme Court certification
program was to begin, TPSA leaders filed one of the strictest
licensing bills in Texas’ history in an effort to block the
Supreme Court’s program.
Members of NAPPS, including some members of the TPSA, were responsible for
killing the TPSA bill so certification could be implemented. After the bill died, TPSA
leaders announced at that year’s NAPPS’ conference that they were thankful to the
Texas Legislature for killing their licensing bill. This was an embarrassment to both
NAPPS and the TPSA.
These same NAPPS members have, for years, alerted our national leaders to the
TPSA leadership’s lies and deception. NAPPS leaders have always taken a neutral
position, deferring to let the states fight it out at their legislatures. You have
wavered from this “neutral” position.
As for your home state of Georgia, the current requirements
reflect the federal rule standards both on “who may serve” and
“how to serve.” Why would you want to burden your fellow
process servers inside Georgia with licensing and regulation,
while anybody with a pulse can serve your state’s process
outside Georgia anywhere in the world?
Transcending all these issues was your treatment of some of your own members.
You say, “Yes, there really are process servers who unabashedly claim they are
nothing more than delivery persons.” Then you suggest those who hold that
opinion are unprofessional. It is disappointing that you can’t see the hypocrisy in
your words. To disagree is acceptable, but, to label some of your own members as
unprofessional because they don't share your opinion is even less professional on
your part. Even a garbage man can conduct himself in a professional manner, no
matter how inconsequential his role in society may be. I am grateful that our
association is no longer at risk by your misguided leadership.
Sincerely,
Tod E. Pendergrass
Member, NAPPS
Founding Director, The Certified Civil Process Servers Association of Texas
cc: NAPPS for submission to The Docket Sheet