A conference committee substitute for SB464 was passed by both the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives. A late night negotiation last Monday between committee chairs Senator Bill Stouffer and Representative Brian Yates resulted in a compromise which stripped all of the bail bond language from the bill and instead inserted language directing the DIFP to conduct a study on the bail bond industry.
The language says:
During the legislative interim between the first regular session and the second regular session of the ninety-fifth general assembly, the Missouri DIFP shall conduct a study regarding its licensing rules and other policies and procedures governing the bail bond industry within the State of Missouri. The department, in its discretion, may hold public hearings within the state and permit testimony and input from surety insurance companies, general bail bond agents, bail bond agents, legislators, law enforcement agencies, officials from the department, and other interested parties. If public hearings are held, the director shall provide notice to all licensees licensed under sections 374.695 to 374.789 of the date, time, and location of such public hearings. The department shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the house representatives and senate insurance committees no later than January 6, 2010.
Previous Posts
House Passes SB464
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
10 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
The battle is won. So begins the war...
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck happened?
ReplyDeleteThe Lee Claus has to go! Including SIS!
Anyone that has been criminally charge with and pled out, should not ever have a license! I firmly believe we should measure up to the same standards as commissioned law officers, I`m certain we would be much better received and trusted by the public at large and the justice system in particular! Pleading out is the same as being found guilty, Cutting a deal is shady at worse and doesn`t make one any less guilty.
The Lee Clause was only part of this. At this stage of the game, it was either kill the whole thing or take the whole thing. We're in a much better position now than we were before for making necessary changes, and, for protecting our interests.
ReplyDeleteoh now a study will be done. Guess what folks, we are in for it now. I wouldnt be suprised if the whole State goes 10%. So not only Felons but all of us honest working Generals will get the ax.
ReplyDeleteget the ax from who? are u parenoid?
ReplyDeleteI`m afraid the general is right! I believe they are tired of the red headed step child called
ReplyDeletesurety bonds, they are now going to become bitter because they have to take their already overburdened dept. and do a study head to toe.
I bet those boys are miffed just to add to their
aggravation. I hope somebody has some juice in Jeff. City to quell their troubles. We may be in for a real problem folks! I really think we should have taken the horn on this bull when we had a chance to have our own oversight on our terms. Houston! We have problems! Your darn right I`m a bit concerned!
This comment is not about the likes or dislikes of this bill. It is about the system... The bill started out addressing the Lee Clause and fees. Everyone that was interested enough to act, contacted their reps and senators telling them to vote for or against. As it turns out, they were voting for words that were unseen. Someone slinked in at the last minute and changed ALL the words. Now, you have asked your rep or senator to vote for a bill that is completely different. How many times has that happened, and who is behind it?
ReplyDeleteYes I also believe that we should have taken the horn on this bull when we had a chance. But the Generals that should be concerned are the ones that conduct shady business practices. Everyone should have to increases the amount they have up with the state. Maybe just maybe this will help stop all the cut throat bond writing that happens. So either put up and shut up. Or Get out.
ReplyDeleteWhy should the assignments be more? Is there truely a problem? I look regularly on the DIFP website and there are never more than a handful of unpaid forfeitures. If you want to stay in business, you will satisfy your forfeitures whether you have 10k or 50k assigned. If you are going out of business, and have done much business at all, 50k wont be nearly enough. It makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous that says we should have taken the bull by the horns when we had a chance, some did. Everyone that pays any attention at all knew about the bogus legislation that was being shoved down our throats. Some reacted as best they could. Some sit on their duffs and are now playing Monday morning quarterback.
I doubt seriously the study is going to turn up much. Only time will tell.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the proposed language in SB 464 was written to benefit a small select group of agents who had some money to throw around and wanted to manipulate legislation in order to thin the competition.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, the first response I expect to see is that there too many agents in the industry and a little "thinning of the herd" wouldn't be a bad thing. Even if there are too many of us writing bonds, putting a bunch of small agencies out of business through "BS" legislation isn't the answer.
One question I'd like to see answered is, what's the justification for the proposed increases and the additional assignments for agents? No one can seem to explain what problems this approach was meant to address, or how it would "fix" anything.
I welcome the DIFP study. I think what they'll find is that this "manuever" was totally unjustified, and self-serving on the part of those who started this crap in the first place.
Further, if DIFP does find problems with the way things are (and I'm sure they will), at least the solutions will be proposed by a regulatory authority and not a bunch of "elitists" looking to corner the market by buying legislation.