tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post527270857916385924..comments2023-08-22T11:49:30.626-05:00Comments on Missouri Bondsman: Guest Commentary by Andy LaughlinBail Informerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11708352522116548692noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-72036202838379111732010-05-12T23:36:59.019-05:002010-05-12T23:36:59.019-05:00I have an apology to make. When chosen for this c...I have an apology to make. When chosen for this committee, I promised myself I would do the right thing and not let my personal feelings and ideas get in the way. I would stick to the info gathered by the surveys and meetings and try to work from there with my votes.<br /><br />Well, I failed on one instance. In the article I wrote above, I mentioned that one particular general agent wanted to include making general agents sign off on bonding agents before they left for another general. Now, I am firmly against this. I think there are too many general agents that would abuse this to keep bonding agents from working anywhere else with trumped up charges and do whatever it took to make them stay or get out of the business. I could name several off the top of my head, but will not get into that kind of game.<br /><br />Well, it was brought to my attention by the lobbyist named above, that the survey actually showed that the majority in the industry that turned in their surveys, wanted this included. I totally overlooked this somehow and it was unintentional on my part. I know others voted the same way I did, so I will not speak for them, but I was wrong.<br /><br />I havent named any names and will not do so. You konw who you are and so do most others. So to the general agent and to the lobbyist involved, I apologize. I understand if you dont accept my apology, but I do hope you do as I mean it sincerely. I was wrong, I shouldnt have voted agianst it to begin with, I shouldnt have fought against the ammendment and I shouldnt have included it in this article. I hope you can be man enough to accept my apology as I am man enough to admit when Im wrong and apologize to you both publicly.<br /><br />On another note, one person on the committee stood up in our very first Senate Committee Hearing and spoke out against the bill. Well, last week, it worked for him. The bill was killed in the Senate, and the Senator said that the reason was that it had opposition as one person spoke out against the bill in the Senate Committee Hearing. So, you got your wish.Andy Laughlinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-38446233377445926382010-04-01T18:37:03.076-05:002010-04-01T18:37:03.076-05:00Not much you can do about cash bonds. I dont know...Not much you can do about cash bonds. I dont know what your calling a code bond. If this legislation passes as is, you will be able to post a 10% bond, same as a surety.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-74129990811000580042010-03-29T19:34:01.571-05:002010-03-29T19:34:01.571-05:00What can we do in a dry county where all bonds are...What can we do in a dry county where all bonds are 10% to the court or code bonds or cash only bonds? Someone with some experience please respond. This has taken place over a short period of time (two months)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-2909479041561436922010-03-09T16:02:21.605-06:002010-03-09T16:02:21.605-06:00IS THE BAIL BOND COMMITTEE STILL AN OFFICAL D.F.I....IS THE BAIL BOND COMMITTEE STILL AN OFFICAL D.F.I.P. APPOINTED COMMITTEE?<br /><br />Andy, it was my understanding that the committee was officially disbanded on January 06th, when I attended a Senate Committee hearing in Jefferson City on SB892, it appeared that the bonding committee was still going strong. <br /><br />I’m curious, has the D.F.I.P. extended the life of the committee, or is a two or three year committee or is it a now close knit group wanting to see their time and efforts completed. <br /><br />There is some language in the committee’s proposed bills (SB892 and HB2156) that needs addressed, I agree with 99% of it. While I don’t feel that it’s bad law, I don’t believe it addressed the needs of our vocation; but it is a start that will show the State that we can come together as a profession. Maybe it will thin out the herd a little and in the next legislative session we can address cash and 10% to the Courts Bonds.Ben Hilton, GBAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-41581996655018983552010-03-08T11:31:37.104-06:002010-03-08T11:31:37.104-06:00I have been in the bail business for 12 years as a...I have been in the bail business for 12 years as a bail agent and a general agent for over a year. I'm the director of operations for one of the bigger bail companies in MO. but I still consider myself a relative newcomer to the industry but I have two cents as well.<br /><br />I hold a general bail license as a fail safe in the event something would happen to our general agent. I do not write bail under my name for two reasons. The first is out of loyalty the second is morals. My financial staus would not cover the dollar amount of bonds I would need to write to make the kind of money I want to make. I would not have any legal problem writing this bail now or even if the current bill passes. I think the fifteen to one ratio proposed in the bill is weak.<br /><br />If our desire is to continue to have a future in the industry then we need to embrace accountability.One hundred eighty days to pay a bond is not what is needed to show accountability or responsability. I believe if a person can't be brought back in ninety days then either your not trying or the bond should't have been written in the first place, pay th piper. There should be no more than five working days to pay the bond from time of judgement entered.<br /><br />Lastly my thought on educational requirements. I believe as a whole the idea of basic and continuiing education is a very good idea. I believe that good things have come through this and I believe most of the educators I know are honorable and doing a good job. I wonder however if we are not shoting ourself in the foot in one aspect. Common sense would tell me if I am providing basic traing for new agents then I would do what I could to get as many people in the class as possible to make it worth doing. There is nothing wrong with this but I think the end result is more bail agents. Instead of having this basic trining provided by inependents why not have the Dept of insurance provide this training say twice a year and pay an instructor a set fee for service rendered. This would reduce the need to solicit new agents to fill a class. Just a thought.<br /><br />That's my two cents;<br />Dennis LambDennis Lambhttp://missouribail.netnoreply@blogger.com