Yesterday, bail bond language appeared in the fourth bill this session. Executive session was held on HB577 and the committee voted to insert the bail bond language into an existing bill heard by the committee. The bill will next go to the full Missouri Senate for a vote. The bill language modifies existing law as follows:
In addition to the existing statutes concerning the minimum qualifications for bail bond licensure, the applicant must:
For a general bail bond agent licensed prior to August 28, 2009, the applicant or, if the applicant is a corporation, each officer of the corporation has completed at least two years as a bail bond agent and the applicant possesses liquid assets of at least ten thousand dollars, along with an executed assignment of ten thousand dollars to the state of Missouri;
For a general bail bond agent licensed on or after August 28, 2009, the applicant or, if the applicant is a corporation, each officer of the corporation has completed at least four years as a bail bond agent and the applicant possesses liquid assets of fifty thousand dollars, along with an executed assignment of such fifty thousand dollars to the state of Missouri.
The general bail bond agent shall execute an assignment to the state of Missouri in the amount of five thousand dollars for each additional bail bond agent newly licensed under the authority of the general bail bond agent on or after August 28, 2009; except that, the general bail bond agent shall not be required to assign five thousand dollars for any agent licensed under the authority of the same general bail bond agent prior to August 28, 2009.
The assignments required by this section shall become effective upon the applicant violating any provision of sections 374.695 to 374.789, and shall be in the form and executed in the manner prescribed by the department. The director may require by rule conditions by which additional assignments of assets of the general bail bond agent may occur when the circumstances of the business of the general bail bond agent warrants additional funds; except that, such additional funds shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars.
374.755 The department may cause a complaint to be filed with the administrative hearing commission as provided by chapter 621, RSMo, against any holder of any license required by sections 374.695 to 374.775 or any person who has failed to renew or has surrendered his or her license for any one or any combination of the following causes:… (2) Final adjudication or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in a criminal prosecution under any state or federal law for a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude. A suspended imposition of sentence is not required to be disclosed for licensing or renewal purposes and shall not serve as a basis for denial of licensure.
(This bail language also appears in SB464. See earlier post.)
Friday, May 1, 2009
4 comments:
Although Missouri Bondsman encourages debate on topics of interest to the bail industry, please be aware that comments are moderated. Please observe the posting rules. No comments will be printed that contain spam, profanity, or libelous comments. Please post comments in a civil, professional manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sitemeter
People need to wake up and get on this. This language right here,
ReplyDelete"The assignments required by this section shall become effective upon the applicant violating any provision of sections 374.695 to 374.789, and shall be in the form and executed in the manner prescribed by the department. The director may require by rule conditions by which additional assignments of assets of the general bail bond agent may occur when the circumstances of the business of the general bail bond agent warrants additional funds; except that, such additional funds shall not exceed fifty thousand dollars."
Can and most likely will be interpreted by the Director to mean it is retroactive to all general agents, not just agents licensed after August 28th of this year. It could, and most likely will, cause most new generals to put up $100,000 and some select existing generals, at the directors will, to put up $50,000.
Those agents that just read the summaries and snickered to themselves and thought it would be good to thin out competition are going to be in for a big surprise. This is just the first step to forcing all agencies to write under and insurance company.
This is the same language that already exists. Read the current statute. Wouldn't the Department have already raised your deposit if they already can?
ReplyDeleteNope. You are wrong. Just like so many that think this is no big deal. Besides upping the ante of extra assignment from 25k to 50k, there is another difference. One that no one is paying attention to that makes all the difference in the world. Here is the current statute.
ReplyDelete"2. In addition, each applicant for licensure as a general bail bond agent shall furnish proof satisfactory to the department that the applicant or, if the applicant is a corporation, that each officer thereof has completed at least two years as a bail bond agent, and that the applicant possesses liquid assets of at least ten thousand dollars, along with a duly executed assignment of ten thousand dollars to the state of Missouri. The assignment shall become effective upon the applicant's violating any provision of sections 374.695 to 374.789. The assignment required by this section shall be in the form and executed in the manner prescribed by the department. The director may require by regulation conditions by which additional assignments of assets of the general bail bond agent may occur when the circumstances of the business of the general bail bond agent warrants additional funds. However, such additional funds shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars."
The current statute says, "The director may require by regulation". The proposed language says, "the director may require by rule". This gives the director unlimited power with no checks and balances. He can decide by himself who pays what.
When you give someone that kind of power, its a slippery slope at best.
Please explain the basis for your assertion that a rule gives the Director unlimited power whereas a regulation does not.
ReplyDeleteThe current "regulation" regarding assignment uses the exact words "this rule" to refer to the regulation itself. See the following:
20 CSR 700-6.250 Assignment of Additional
Assets
PURPOSE: This rule effectuates and aids in
the interpretation of the provisions of sections
374.715 and 374.740, RSMo, involving the
conditions under which an assignment of
additional assets to the director will be
required of a general bail bond agent.
So again I ask how the new language leads to the dreaded "unlimited power" you claim.