Guest Commentary by Andy Laughlin

My Take on Our Industry

I have been in the Bail Bond business for a little over ten years now. There is no doubt that things have changed dramatically since I started. The number of bonds are down and the number of bondsmen are up. There are many in this industry that have no business writing bonds, at least not in the amount they are writing them. All of this needs to be addressed, and is currently being addressed by legislation that is in the works in Jefferson City.

When I first started, a General Agent had to qualify with each circuit he wanted his agents to write bonds in. This was good, in a way, but needed to be refined. The problem was with the variation of criteria used by each judge. No two counties were the same. Just as wildly varied as the qualification criteria, there were just as varied ways each judge handles forfeitures. If it is a county you deal with on a regular basis, you might not like it, but at least you would know what to expect. If you wrote a bond out of your normal area, you could get some very big surprises should something go wrong.

In 2004-2005, a bill was introduced to try to fix some of these problems. I don’t want to get into what exactly happened, as I have heard claims from several that were involved, and I wasn’t there. I don’t know who, for sure, is responsible for this legislation, but due to poor wording, it really caused more problems in the industry, in my opinion. In an effort to standardize the way qualifications and forfeitures are handled, among other things. Due to poor wording, as I stated before, the law was interpreted different by many different judges. Some continued to qualify bondsman the same as they always have and some interpreted to mean that anyone with a license could write all the bail they want in every circuit. This has caused chaos. Many bondsman got their General Agents license with nothing more than a ten thousand dollar CD and started hiring all of the agents they could to write for them. I know some of these guys personally and have heard it out of their mouths. Their goal is to make all the money they can, while they can, and if they get caught with a judgment they can’t pay, no problem, they will just go out of business and start again with a family member or a friend. There is no accountability. The new law was also supposed to give us 6 months to find our skips. Again, I have heard this interpreted a number of different ways and none of them gave me 6 months. All of this due to poor wording.

Last session, a bill was introduced to raise the bar from a ten thousand dollar CD to a fifty thousand dollar CD assigned to DIFP to get your General Agents license. While this was an attempt to get rid of some of the Generals that were writing on their CD only, it was going to have other consequences and was not going to solve the problem, in my opinion. Last session was the first time I had ever gone to the Capitol, either supporting or working against, any legislation. Boy did I get a lesson in politics! I have never been on such a roller coaster ride in my life. I did make some friends, both in the industry and with legislators. Thanks to several other bondsmen from around the state that didn’t like this attempt, we defeated this bill. And, there was a mandate issued by the legislation that was passed that DIFP do a study of the industry and report back what problems need to be addressed by the beginning of this session. It all worked out great, in my opinion. Now we had a legitimate chance at making some changes in our industry to make it better, eliminate some people that do not need to be here and standardize practices statewide. In my mind it was, and still is, our best, and maybe only shot, at making ourselves legitimate to the state, legislators, judges and public in this state. To show that we are professionals and to police ourselves and clean up our own mess. And, it very well could be our last chance to save our industry. (My current General Agent told me ten years ago that we would be out of business by now. I want to prove him wrong.)

I immediately wrote letters to DIFP requesting a chance to be on the committee to help with this study. I was fortunate enough to be selected to help with this process. I went in with an open mind and was very excited about the chance to make a difference in our industry. We held our first meeting in Jefferson City. At that meeting, the results of the survey that DIFP had sent out to every agent in the state to get information about what the industry was thinking as a whole, were given to us. It was also decided that we should send out surveys to every judge in the state to see what their thoughts were. Then, we had four public hearings, in Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield and Jefferson City, to give agents from all over the state a chance to testify and give us more information on what everyone wants in our industry. After all of the surveys were in and the hearings were done, it was obvious there were several topics that needed to be addressed. We held several meetings trying to draft the best legislation we possibly could, keeping in mind that compromises had to be made to have any chance of getting it passed. We kept in mind everything we had heard from around the state, also realizing that not every issue could be addressed with one piece of legislation. It was a rocky road at times and another great learning experience. But, in my opinion, we came out with one of the best pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced, and a piece that could very well help extend our industry into the future. Do I love everything about it? No. Would I like some changes? Yes. Would I like some things added? Yes. But I do support this bill as written. There are some things that can be addressed in other sessions. There are some things that do not need to be done as statute, but can be done as regulation. I am not going to go into all the specifics. Anyone can read the language for themselves.

Another great thing about this legislation, it is a composite of what we heard over and over again, all over the state. Not everything we heard, but the major points that we heard many times. We used ideas from the surveys agents and judges filled out. We had input from bail bond agents, general agents, judges, legislators, OSCA, DIFP, Police Chiefs Association, Sheriffs Association, County Clerks and several other sources. The judges on the committee lobbied many other judges, and as a whole, most judges like the language. This is not the work of one person or group, as it has been in the past. This is a work of many facets related to our industry. After is was finished, Rita Heard-Days, a Senator that sat on the committee, introduced the bill we all worked so hard on.

I was, and am not, ignorant enough to think that the legislation will just roll through without some opposition or some things being taken off or added. But I did not think that people that were on the committee and worked as hard as I did, would be selfish and foolish enough to attack it themselves. But that is what is happening and I am very disappointed. We got an early hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had several members of the committee testify in favor of the bill. There was one person that testified against. And that person was on the committee. This person did object to a few things during the meetings and voted against a few of the items. But, instead of doing like the rest of us, as I said, I didn’t like every part of it either, and supporting what the committee decided could be passed, he decided to take it upon himself and speak out against it in a public hearing. That is his right and I do not deny him that. I am, however, very disappointed. Right off the bat, we don’t show professionalism and solidarity in trying to clean up our own mess and police ourselves. One of the committee members that went through this whole process, takes it upon himself to try and kill what we have worked so hard for, just because it doesn’t serve him perfectly. But it doesn’t stop there.

Like I said earlier, last session was my first introduction into politics on Capitol Hill. And what a lesson it was. The gentleman that introduced the language last year, had hired a lobbyist. After I got into the fight against it, I was introduced to a lobbyist that worked for another person that had the same goal as I did. I ended up working with this lobbyist the rest of the session, along with many others, to get this language out. Politics are wild enough as it is, throw lobbyist’s in the mix and it gets worse. We were about half way through our meetings of the committee, and I was very excited about the prospects. I was approached by the gentleman that had the lobbyist I worked with last session to see if I would help to hire him this session, to help massage the bill and help it to pass. I agreed that would be a good idea. However, I was not ready to do so just yet. I am glad I didn’t. I have been told that a group was formed to hire this lobbyist, but to massage the bill and help it pass, is not exactly true.

Let me back up. During the meetings, we all had our objections, as I said before, and things we wanted in that did not make it in this time. One General Agent wanted to put in a piece that would make agents turn in all of their paperwork and money and the General Agent would have to sign off before the agent could go to work for another General Agent. There were arguments heard both for and against. A vote was taken and it was voted down. It didn’t stop there. This particular General Agent, called some of the committee members, asking if it could be brought up for a vote again, and if so, would they change their vote. Now, I have a problem with this. I have always been a fan of the democratic process. If you lose a vote, you don’t lobby to have it brought back up for another vote. I was disappointed with this individual. But, he didn’t stop there. I have been told by another agent that heard this directly from the lobbyist that this General Agent helped to pay his fee and they were going to introduce an amendment to our bill with this added language. Now I am severely disappointed. I had a lot of respect for this General Agent. But now, instead of working as a member of the committee, he is self serving, and I have a gut feeling he isn’t the only one, jeopardizing our bill and furthering the view that we are not professional and cleaning up our own mess as we were trying to show.

There is another lobbyist involved. The General Agent that introduced the language last session, as I said before, had hired a lobbyist. We have talked many times recently and I am convinced that his goal is to massage this bill and help get it passed as much in tact as possible. What we should all be striving for as members of the committee that wrote this language. That is exactly what he is trying to do, although, I am not particularly fond of all of the tactics he has used so far. It appears that he has made some comments to one of the judges on the committee that did not set well. It also appears that he made some comments to one of the legislators that got back to one of the committee members that also did not set well. But, other than that, he has done a good job, so far, to help the bill along. But we have a long way to go. (I keep saying bill, but should say language, as it appears the original Senate Bill will not go anywhere and we now have to hope the House Bill with the same language does.) They say politics make strange bedfellows. I find it funny that that the General Agent and lobbyist I considered my mortal enemy last session, I am now working with for a common goal.

That is my take, in a nutshell, about where this industry is, and how it got here. I am very proud and honored to have had the chance to help with what I truly believe to be the best piece of legislation that has ever been offered for the industry as a whole. Like I said, it is not the product of one man or group, but of many facets of people related to our industry. Yes, there are things I don’t particularly like, and there are things that I would like added in the future. Yes, I knew we would have some opposition. I am very disappointed it is coming from within our own committee, and have lost respect for some that are doing this. Hopefully, somehow, we can get this behind us and get this legislation through in tact, or at least as in tact as possible. I have had conversations with some others, including one of the judges on the committee, and if we don’t get this through, god help us. There is a good chance that our industry is in dire straits in this state. We will most likely never get a cross section of people like we had on this committee, to the table again. Especially if it is killed by the greed and self serving actions of people that were on the committee.

I think there is still a chance we can get this through and save our industry. But, we have a long way to go.

Andy Laughlin

SB464 Substitute Passed

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

Bail Bond Language in HB577

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.)

SB464 Passed by House

Yesterday, SB464 was passed by the Missouri House of Representatives with a vote of 129-15. The bill then was taken up by the Senate and they did not approve the changes made by the House. The bill will be taken up again by the House, who will recede or grant a conference committee on the bill changes. Both chambers will then have to approve any recommendations made by the conference committee.

The major bail bond provisions of this bill are:

1) The Lee Clause is repealed, but this version of the bill specifically details that an SIS is not considered a conviction, is not required to be disclosed, and shall not serve as a basis for denial of licensure.

2) Requires that an agent be licensed for 4 years before becoming eligible to become a general agent or the officer of a bail bond corporation.

3) Requires general agents licensed after August 28th, to assign a $50,000 CD.

4) Requires general agents to assign a $5,000 CD for each new agent licensed after August 28th. In this bill, the language has been clarified to exclude the $5,000 CD for any agent working before or on the date the bill becomes law.

SB464, Bail Language

Bail bond language appeared in another bill last week, SB464. It is similar to the language in the HB628 and HB777, with several new language changes.

1) The Lee Clause is repealed, but this version of the bill specifically details that an SIS is not considered a conviction, is not required to be disclosed, and shall not serve as a basis for denial of licensure.

2) Requires that an agent be licensed for 4 years before becoming eligible to become a general agent or the officer of a bail bond corporation.

3) Requires general agents licensed after August 28th, to assign a $50,000 CD.

4) Requires general agents to assign a $5,000 CD for each new agent licensed after August 28th. In this bill, the language has been clarified to exclude the $5,000 CD for any agent working before or on the date the bill becomes law.

This is a Senate bill which was amended in the House Insurance Committee. The bill is currently in the Rules Committee.

Bail Bond Language Now in HB777

The Insurance Policy Committee, chaired by Rep. Brian Yates, recently added the bail bond language contained in HB628 to an insurance bill, HB777. The bill was reported out of committee yesterday. After a bill is reported out of the committee, it makes its way to a full vote of the chamber. The bail language in the bill seeks to:

Raise the CD requirement to $50,000 for any new general agent who becomes licensed after 8/28/2009, and additionally requires that “the general bail bond agent shall execute an assignment to the state of Missouri in the amount of five thousand dollars for each bail bond agent licensed under the authority of the general bail bond agent on or after August 28, 2009." The bill also seeks to repeal the Lee Clause, which would delete the 15-year look-back on felony convictions.

The following is my opinion of the bail bond language contained in HB777, formerly known as HB628. I respect Bail Bond Agent Cooper for his tenacity in writing a bill and stepping up to offer a solution. With that said, here is what I think about the specific language:

I support the section of the bill which offers the repeal of the Lee Clause. I think it is reprehensible that a man like Lee Jackson, who served 20 years for 8 felony convictions, was eligible to get a bail bond license.

I do not understand the language in Cooper’s bill in which he amends the current language to say: "(A) bail bond agent shall hold the license for at least four years prior to owning or being an officer of a licensed general bail bond agent.” Does this mean that after possessing a bail bond agent’s for 4 years there is a provision in which you can “own” a general agent? How does one do that? I had hoped the language would have been clarified to say that one must possess an agent’s license for 4 years before becoming eligible to apply for a general agent’s license or becoming eligible to be a corporate officer of a licensed bail bond corporation.

New general agents licensed after August 28, 2009, must possess liquid assets of fifty thousand dollars, along with an executed assignment of fifty thousand dollars to the state of Missouri. The bill does not define what is considered “liquid assets of $50,000”and does not specify who determines the sufficiency of the liquid assets. The bill states that in addition to the “liquid assets,” one must execute an additional assignment of $50,000. Financial experts classify liquid assets as cash or any asset that can be converted into cash within a period of twenty days with little or no loss in value. Money in bank accounts, money market funds, and US Treasury bills are examples of liquid assets. Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and real estate are not generally considered “liquid.” The fine print could certainly be interpreted to mean a general agent must possess $100,000 in cash-type assets in addition to any fixed assets the general agent may pledge to the local court.

The $5,000 per agent provision seems ambiguous to me. The provision says: “(T)he general bail bond agent shall execute an assignment to the state of Missouri in the amount of five thousand dollars for each bail bond agent licensed under the authority of the general bail bond agent on or after August 28, 2009.” Although I have been told that the intent of this provision is that any general agent, who signs a new agent after August 28th, will have to deposit $5,000, the provision could be interpreted to mean that all general agents in the state could be required to deposit $5,000 for each agent licensed on the date the bill becomes law.

Without careful crafting of new law, vague language can lead to unintended consequences. I hope those responsible for spearheading this bill will recognize that results are what you expect, and consequences are what you get.

Hearing Held on HB628

A hearing was held yesterday on HB628. Two people testified on the bill, Bart Cooper speaking in favor and Marilyn Turner speaking in opposition.

The bill seeks to raise the CD requirement to $50,000 for any new general agent who becomes licensed after 8/28/2009 and requires a $5,000 CD assignment by the general agent for each new agent licensing under his/her authority after 8/28/2009. The bill also seeks to repeal the Lee Clause, which would delete the 15-year look-back on felony convictions. See the full bill text here. (New language is in bold print, while proposed deletions are bracketed.)

If you would like to comment on any provision of HB628, it is now in the Professional Registration Committee. The committee will hold executive session on the bill at a later meeting. The committee could pass the bill as it is currently worded, amend the bill, or take no action on the bill. For a quick refresher, here is a flowchart on how a bill becomes a law.

More Guest Commentary: How to Improve the Bail Industry

The following is guest commentary submitted by Tim Bruce, a licensed General Agent from the Springfield area.

Reality Check

As I have been reading every ones comments and suggestions, it amazes me at just how many agents and General agents contradict themselves. The old (Pot calling the kettle black). From financing and no money down bonds to offering rebates, many of the ones complaining are some of the very ones doing just that.

We would all agree that something needs to be done if we are interested in the long term stability of our industry, but we cannot and will not truly stand together to effectively do something to help ourselves. The only Association I was once a member of was only in place for a few members to try and back door and sneak legislation through that would only benefit them and Insurance Companies. Had it not been for Angela Parks and a few others who were keeping track of what was going on, legislation could have passed and none of us would have known anything about it until it was too late.

To try and organize all the Agents statewide is a very commendable and hopeful thought. I assure you though that it will never happen. (Example> Each and every County and each and every Judge in this state does things differently and by their own rule) Procedures are done differently according to the interpretation of rules by each individual Judge, Prosecutor, Sheriff and even the Bail Bond Agents.

Several years ago, myself and many of the local agents in my area got together and jointly and adamantly decided to raise our minimum fees, addressed discounting and financing fees, and raised all failure to appear bonds to 20%. That very afternoon, two agents walked across the street to the jail and one wrote a bond by discount and the other by financing with low down and low weekly payments.

If you cannot even get the local agents in your prospective area to agree and cooperate, then how do you even remotetly think you can organize agents and companies statewide?
As much as I hate the Government even slightly getting involved in my business, unless the rules of policy and proceedure are point blank and enforced, you will never get the agents and companies to comply.

I remember what it was like being a brand new agent. I starved to death for the first 16 months. Now with many Counties implementing the catch and release policy and the mass R.O.R. policies by allot of Courts it is even hard for exsiting agents to make a living. To make matters even worse for those agents many Generals chose to impliment what I call the Ice theory flooding the state with multiple agents. This works out great for the General as he/she makes 50% of every agent. Unfortunately for the agent many Generals put multiple agents in the same area and not only does the agent have to compete with other companies, they also have to compete with thier own company. I do not believe in stacking agents. I would rather have an agent make a good living and write quality bonds, than to have high volume profits on questionable and high risk bonds. (make sense?)

In my opinion, If the General Agent puts an agent in situations where he/she is struggling to make a living. The responsibility of the agents business ethics, proceedures and questionalbe bond writing should fall on the General that allows it. If as a General, you cannot control the proceedures followed by your agent, you simply get ride of them. If you as a General allow the agent to premium write, finance, undercut and conduct themselves in the manner in which you allow. Then by all means, do not complain about the down fall of this industry and do not put all the blame on your agents. As a General, if you are into high volume bonds rather than quality. If you put pressure on your agents to write more bonds,then accept the concequenses that comes with the added stress to your agents.

If you truly want to change this industry for the better and you truly want to have each and every agent and General Agent on the same page, then unfortunately you are going to have to have someone put in place rules and regulations that forces all to follow. Les Hogue seems to be an honorable man, and from speaking with him, it seems he truly wants to clean this industry up.

Why would it be such an impossible task to maybe sit down with Les Hogue, the Dept. of Insurance,and whomever the new director turns out to be and impliment policy and proceedures to enforce many of the laws already on the books to work towards cleaning this industry up? I am not an advocate putting anyone out of work or preventing anyone from going to work, but in order to change anything for the better it is the General Agents who have to get on board and clean up thier own house before they can tell anyone else how to conduct business. If everyone had to follow the same RULES then there would be no questions.

Mr. Cooper and Mr. Thomas and many others have very good points of interest but putting them all in a blog, or sitting around talking about it does absolutely nothing to change things. If you manage to get all the Generals to come together in some sort of Independant Association and actually agree on how to change things for the better, please call me, as I would be one of your biggest advocates and allie.

If I have a tire that keeps going flat and all I do is keep putting air in it. eventually it will blow out doing unknown damage. Our Industry is just that. Unil we actually fix it, eventually it will blow out and all of us will suffer.

Thanks for reading
Tim Bruce
General Agent.

Guest Letter: Opposition to Increasing the CD Assignment

Note: The following is a guest commentary submitted by Michael Thomas, a state certified trainer for initial education and CE. Thomas is also a general agent in Missouri.

First of all let me explain to those who are not familiar with the current system, what happens when a general agent puts up his or her $10,000.00 with the state. The general agent goes to the bank and buys a CD in his or her name in the amount of $10,000.00. The general then completes a General Bail Bond Agent Assignment form MO 375-0525. This form assigns the money in that CD to the State of Missouri. The bank then completes an Acknowledgement of Assignment form MO 375-0527. These forms are then sent to the State of Missouri and at that point the General agent can no longer touch the money until he has surrendered his license and his liabilities have cleared. This money can not be touched by the General Agent to pay day to day forfeitures. The DIFP is the only entity that can draw money from the CD, other than the interest it earns, as long as the Assignment is in effect.

Similarly, if a general agent were required to put up a $5,000.00 CD for each agent working under his or her authority there would be an Assignment executed for each of those agents. Again the general agent would not be able to touch that money until the Assignment is released by the state. So regardless of what your contract with the general says the money isn’t going to be released until the state allows it.

A common misconception is that this money is routinely used to pay forfeitures. That just isn’t the case. By the time this money is used by the state to pay forfeiture, the General Agent has been shut down for at least 30 days and may in fact be out of business. The courts and the DIFP expect the General Agent to pay forfeitures with other monies long before it gets to a point where the state has to take it from the CD.

Most people try to keep their money working for them by investing in stocks and bonds, CD’s, real estate, and various business ventures. CD’s have a very poor rate of return, presently 1 to 2 percent at best and is typically an investment that older individuals would use to safeguard retirement money that has already been made. Most of us in the business are younger and are not to the point in our investment portfolios where we want our money to be stagnate. If the amount of assignment is raised from $10,000.00 to $50,000.00 this money would essentially stop working for us. And since this money is used by the State as the final solution and generals can’t touch it in the event of a forfeiture, each general agent would still have to have a significant amount of cash on hand or readily accessible to pay the day to day forfeitures.

All of us are disgruntled by the influx of people into this industry and yes it is affecting our income. Not so much because of the numbers of new bondsmen but because of irresponsible bail writing. This business has always been able to separate the wheat from the chaff but it takes a little time for this to occur. Irresponsible bondsmen go broke pretty quickly and eliminate themselves. But nevertheless they adversely affect us while they are in business. If you look at the liability they incurred in the 18 to 24 months that it took to get themselves into trouble the amount is staggering. Sometimes this liability can be in the millions of dollars. Raising the Assignment from $10,000 to $50,000 would not stop these people from getting into the business and would not do anything to curtail irresponsible bond writing.

An example I use in my classes to illustrate my point follows, If a small county has 5 bondsmen in the county and typically the court averages about 5 criminals with bonds of $20,000 each month, it follows that if all things are equal, each of those five bondsmen has a fair chance of procuring one of these bonds each month and making $2,000.00. Now, if one of these bondsmen advertises that he will write bonds for little or no money down and is very lax on cosigner qualification he will end up writing all five bonds each month and collecting only a small fraction of the fee. The other bondsmen who are doing things the way they should be done don’t make a dime. It doesn’t take long for the careless bondsman to get into trouble because his liability is going through the roof. But until that liability gets to the point that he can no longer pay the forfeitures, none of the other bondsmen in the county are making any money.

The answer to the problem lies in requiring a minimum percentage be charged on each bond and then prohibiting the extension of credit by a bondsman. Until January of 2005 a Judge in Livingston county required bondsmen to swear under oath that they were not extending credit and that they had received the full premium before the bond could be written. This begins to level the playing field because a bondsman who understands the risk involved in writing the bond no longer has to compete with one who doesn’t. And the criminal is no longer able to “shop” for the best price.

Several years ago, fed up with the number of forfeitures that I received in the mail each month, I began looking for a common thread that would help me better identify a bad bond before it was written. As I looked back over several years of records I realized that about 95% of my forfeitures were from clients to whom we had extended credit. I told my agents that we would no longer extend credit on bonds. Within six months my forfeitures had dropped by 95% and the income that my agents and I were making remained virtually unchanged. Sure we wrote fewer bonds but we got all of our money up front and didn’t have collection and bounty hunting fees chipping away at our income. When a person is charged with a crime, the cheapest thing on the menu is the bond fee. Attorney’s fees and court costs are usually about equal to the full amount of the bond. When a client can’t pay the full fee, you are likely to incur a forfeiture because if he can’t pay you, he can’t pay the lawyer or the fines either and sooner or later the Judge is going to give him the ultimatum that if he shows back up in court without an attorney or his fine money, he will be put in jail and an attorney appointed for him or his fines taken out in time served.

I have never been in favor of restricting people from getting into this business. If this proposed law were in effect 14 years ago, I could have never become a bondsman much less a general agent. I feel that I turned out OK and a lot of the people this bill would prohibit from becoming bondsmen will too. It is just an un-American ideology and in this troubled economy the wrong thing to do.

I am in full agreement with Mr. Cooper on the repeal of the Lee Clause. I make no apologies for this position as I feel that persons CONVICTED of felonies should not be allowed in the bail bond or surety recovery business no matter how long it has been. I do feel however, that if the court sees fit to issue an SIS, and the felony “goes away” after completion of a probationary period, then this should not be held against the prospective applicant.

More government regulation is NEVER the answer.

Respectfully Submitted
Michael R Thomas
Thomas Training Institute
www.thomastraininginstitute.com

Guest Commentary-Elevating Our Standards

Editor's Note: The following is guest commentary submitted by Randall Smith, a certified trainer for both CE and initial education. Smith is also a licensed bail bond agent.

I want to thank Agent Cooper for his commentary and editorial regarding HB 628. Opening discussion and dialogue on current issues within the industry should be on going. If we are going to elevate our standards of professionalism then we must open discussion for relevant positive change. Rest assured if we don’t someone else will. We MUST become proactive in our own industry.

Agent Cooper has made many valid comments and points regarding bail in Missouri. One of the most significant points he makes is the number and quality of agents in this industry. As a State Certified Trainer in Missouri I see people come to the 24 Hour Initial Basic Training with nearly delusional preconceptions about this industry. Mainly brought about by the media and reality TV shows.

Training in this state for the Professional Bail Agent is far less than adequate in preparing them for this complex industry. Currently we allow nearly everyone to attend a 24 hour course. Some can barely read and write, they attend, we then push them on through. They take a very easy 60 Question State Examination and receive their license. They are in NO WAY prepared for this industry.

We must elevate the standards and requirements for entering this profession by first making the training and testing requirements more standardized. We should demand a higher level of professional that enters into this business. Once licensed, the professional agent should then be required to have substantially higher CE requirements to maintain the licensure privilege. As an example, the State of New Mexico requires 120 Hours of basic training on a pass-fail basis. There are strict standards to even be accepted into their academies. Once they pass, the must sit for a 250 Question State Certifying Examination. They are issued a probationary license and must complete 100 hours of field training before they are issued a permanently renewable license with additional CE requirements. Agents in that state are highly regarded for the most part and have very similar training to law enforcement.

The tendency in this industry, (in our state), is to seek out those who offer CE Credits by merely processing the paperwork. We as true professionals should be demanding better CE training. If we represent ourselves as professionals then we should be seeking real and valuable training relevant to our industry. We MUST invest in ourselves by seeking out this training and not take short cuts just to get a license renewed. This is NOT professional practice. We as professional trainers should not allow this practice in the first place.

Mr. Cooper points out the practice of the courts issuing 10%, Cash and OR bonds. All one has to do is look at the FTA cases in those counties practicing these policies and see the number of unresolved cases. In my opinion when courts order cash or 10% bonds, they have crossed the line and now are involved in private enterprise, which is a direct conflict of local government. There is a huge amount of research that proves the viability of the bail system in reducing those FTA numbers. This stands to reason since we have a lot to loose when an FTA occurs.

Until we increase the standards of qualification in this industry and provide real relevant training I see this industry staying the same. Certainly there are many other issues and much more legislation needed. However, without seriously reconsidering the industry qualifications and training policies I do not see any viable way to address these issues. We have to make the training tough and rigorous. Only then will we be able to see a change in the level of the professional agent. New candidates should have to PASS the rigorous training program and testing before they qualify for licensure.

Finally, if we as professionals continue to tolerate impropriety, and other misconduct within the industry, then this industry will always have a "black cloud" haning over us. Another area where we need to become proactive!

Thank you again Agent Cooper for your comments. I hope the rest of us in this industry jump on board and become pro-active.

Randall E Smith, L.B.A., C.P. I., State Certified Trainer
MARC Academy of Professional Bail Agents
Randall E. Smith
Check Us Out On the Web
http://www.midamericarecoveryco.com/

Guest Editorial on HB628

Editor's Note: The following is a guest editorial submitted by Bart Cooper of Bart Cooper Bail Bonds. The letter addresses the industry concerning HB628:

As many of you know, HB628 was recently introduced by Representative Brian Yates. This legislation attempts to address some of the issues now facing the bail industry in Missouri.

In recent years, our industry has undergone a transformation for the worse. Gone are the days of trust and cooperation among companies and agents, having been replaced with a new era of avarice and greed. While the future of bail in Missouri appears dim, I believe we can work together to strengthen and preserve our profession for years to come. Accordingly, I’m asking for your help in restoring professionalism and accountability in our profession. But first, let’s examine the history of bail in Missouri, and how we got where we are today.

How We Got Here

1. The Good Old Days
   A. Traditionally, bail companies charged a minimum premium of ten percent per bond.
   B. The minimum premium was deemed necessary to cover potential losses and expenses while leaving some profit for the agent and general agent.
   C. The system worked and remained relatively stable for decades.
2. What changed?
   A. More and more people entered the bail industry. The proliferation of agents surged with the publicity created by series such as “Dog”. With an investment of less than five hundred dollars for a two year license, people soon learned that bail offered a means to turn a quick profit. Often seen as an additional stream of income, general agents were quick to hire new agents.
   B. The proliferation of agents inevitably led to more general agents. Needing only ten thousand dollars and two years licensure as a bail agent, the number of companies exploded. The past three years alone has seen a more than thirty percent increase in general agents.
   C. Courts also began modifying their approach to bail. Faced with budgetary constraints, some courts began to look at alternative forms of release as a means of generating revenue and reducing costs (e.g. ten percent to the court, cash only and recognizance bonds).
   D. Beginning in 2005, some circuit courts eliminated local qualification requirements. If you were licensed by the state, you could execute bonds within the circuit without further qualification. Without the oversight of local circuit courts, companies were free to execute bonds regardless of whether they possessed the assets necessary to fully collateralize the bonds should they forfeit.
   E. This combination of factors created extreme pricing pressures. With more agents and companies competing for a decreasing number of clients, the notion of a minimum premium began disappearing. Desperate for cash to cover personal or business expenses, agents began discounting bonds and extending substantial amounts of credit. Underwriting standards started to take a back seat to cash flow. Some even turned to questionable or unethical practices in an attempt to achieve profit.
   F. The erosion of a decades-old pricing structure negatively impacted the industry. Reduced cooperation and respect among companies and agents became pervasive. No longer were we able to trust each other, regardless of the merit of ideas or sincerity of efforts. As the pricing structure continued to break down, undercapitalized generals became commonplace. Discounted premiums, inability to collect on promises to pay, and poor underwriting left many generals with more forfeitures than they could pay.
   G. Much like the homeowner who owes more on their home than it is worth, undercapitalized general agents were faced with a decision: work diligently (and possibly borrow money) to resolve the tens of thousands in forfeitures and save the ten thousand dollars assigned to the state, or walk away. Clearly, the system is now at a point where people choose to walk away from the ten thousand dollars rather than work to resolve much greater forfeiture losses.
   H. As more and more general agents walk away, courts are left with more judgments than the ten thousand dollar assignment can cover. Frustrated by the breakdown in the bail process, courts become increasingly dissatisfied with the professional bail industry. This dissatisfaction, coupled with the budgetary pressures noted above, lead courts to adopt alternative forms of release. With fewer bonds available, the competition increases and the cycle repeats itself.

Current State of Bail

1. The Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP) now acknowledges that there are too many bail agents for the system to function properly.
2. DIFP also realizes that the current deposit requirement of ten thousand dollars is never sufficient to cover losses of generals who walk away from the business.
3. Courts are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the commercial bail industry.

Why Act Now

1. The industry is nearing a point of catastrophic failure. Without action on our part, the DIFP and courts will be forced to act. Although we do not know exactly what these actions will entail, they could include raising the amount of assignment or altogether eliminating commercial bail.
2. We must begin working together to control our industry. In states where commercial bail is strong, licensing requirements are also strong. Strong licensing requirements foster strong bail associations, which in turn strengthen the commercial bail industry as a whole.
3. We are legislatively positioned to achieve results now. With support from both lawmakers and the DIFP, we are poised to reform our industry and restore professionalism and credibility.

Solutions

I have proposed legislation which I believe will begin to restore professionalism and accountability to the commercial bail industry in Missouri. The legislative changes are as follows:

1. Eliminate felons from the industry.
2. Increase the assignment for new general agents licensed after August 28, 2009 (when the legislation takes effect) to fifty thousand dollars.
3. Require every general agent to assign five thousand dollars to the State of Missouri any time they add an agent after August 28, 2009.
4. Allow the DIFP to raise the assignment requirement to fifty thousand dollars for any agent should they deem it necessary (for cause).
5. Raise the non-resident assignment to fifty thousand dollars.

I ask you to join me in promoting this legislation. While by no means a solution to all our problems, the proposed changes represent a start at attempting to address the issues before DIFP and the courts take matters into their own hands. Together we can begin restoring credibility, professionalism and cooperation in the Missouri commercial bail industry.

I look forward to discussing the proposed changes with you.

Sincerely,
Bart W. Cooper, General Agent

Bail Bond Bill Introduced

A new baill bond bill, HB628, was introduced by Rep. Brian Yates-(R) of Lee’s Summit. The bill seeks to raise the assigned CD for new general agents. Here is a brief summary.

If the bill passes, on August 28, 2009 the following changes would occur:

1. An agent must hold an agent’s license for 4 years, prior to being eligible to become a general agent.
2. If you are a licensed general agent before 8/28/2009, your CD requirement will remain unchanged.
3. All general agents licensed after 8/28/2009 will be required to assign a $50,000 CD to the state.
4. After 8/28/2009, the general agent must execute an additional $5,000 CD for each new agent who licenses under his/her authority.
5. The director may require additional assignments of assets. Department rule will dictate 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.
6. Repeals the Lee Clause. (The provision allowing a 15 year look-back on the criminal record of any license holder.)

End of Session Report

What passed and what didn’t

The legislative session ended a few weeks ago. Thankfully, the bail bond board bills did not pass. Here’s a summary of the bills and their status.

SB1247-Created a bail bond board and imposed a bail bond tax to finance the board. Never received a hearing.

HB2454-Created a bail bond board and imposed a bail bond tax. Never received a hearing.

SB869-Originally, this bill was to repeal the 15-year “Lee Clause” which allowed the licensing of felons in the bail industry, as long as the felony was over 15 years ago. The bill sought to remove the 15 year clause, stating that felons could be denied a license, regardless of when the felony conviction. An amendment was offered by MPBBA in committee. The bill died in committee.

HB1549-One bill affecting our profession did pass. HB1549 passed, which instructs the courts on bail for those persons residing in Missouri who are not legal residents of the US. The bill states that if a judge believes a person is unlawfully present in the US, there is a presumption that releasing that person under ANY condition will not reasonably assure appearance in court. The person shall be committed to jail until he/she can prove lawful presence or until the case is discharged.

Text of the HB1549
544.470. 1. If the offense is not bailable, or if the person does not meet the conditions for release, as provided in section 544.455, the prisoner shall be committed to the jail of the county in which the same is to be tried, there to remain until he be discharged by due course of law.
2. There shall be a presumption that releasing the person under any conditions as provided by section 544.455 shall not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required if the circuit judge or associate circuit judge reasonably believes that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States. If such presumption exists, the person shall be committed to the jail, as provided in subsection 1 of this section, until such person provides verification of his or her lawful presence in the United States to rebut such presumption. If the person adequately proves his or her lawful presence, the circuit judge or associate circuit judge shall review the issue of release, as provided under section 544.455, without regard to previous issues concerning whether the person is lawfully present in the United States. If the person cannot prove his or her lawful presence, the person shall continue to be committed to the jail and remain until discharged by due course of law.

Show-Me Daily Blogs About Bail Industry

The Show-Me Daily Blog recently opined about the Riverfront Times article concerning the saga of Lee Jackson and the legislative activities of the MPBBA. The Show-me Daily is hosted by the Show-Me Institute, a Missouri public policy think tank. The posts encourage readers to read the whole Riverfront Times article and selects key quotes to demonstrate the history of the MPBBA and its political agenda.

In another post on the same site, blogger David Stokes writes of his support of private bail and the US system. The blog also posted an article concerning its thoughts on professional licensing in general. Stokes thinks that the bail industry is one of the industries that should have some sort of professional registration, although is not supportive of the idea of state regulatory bodies' relationships with trade associations because as he writes, "because existing firms will always try to use political muscle to limit their competition from the outside."

I encourage you to click the links for a different perspective from outside the bail industry.

Legislating Your Future

Let’s imagine for a moment that Exxon passed a law saying that everyone in the State of Missouri must buy only Exxon gas. I suppose if you wanted to continue to go to work and pay your bills, you would buy Exxon gas. What would happen to all of the other gasoline companies? What would happen to the price of gas? What would happen to the Exxon profit margins? How well do you think Exxon would pay its stockholders and company executives? You would say that is absurd, right? The state legislature would have no business granting a company the exclusive rights to sell a product or service.

Now, let’s apply this situation to the Missouri Professional Bail Bond Association’s (MPBBA) bail bills, HB2454 and SB1247. The bail association wants legislative authority to nominate members to serve on their newly created bail bond board and they want the right to exclusively provide the training of all bail and recovery agents in the state. The association also wants to double the amount of training you will be forced to take from them.

What is going to happen to the other training providers in the state? Well, they will be out of business. What will happen to the profit margins of the association? Of course they will soar because if you want to be nominated to serve on the board, you’d better become a member. If you want to continue to work, you will have to take their training. The bail association will have an influx of money to pay its directors and/or hire staff. And what about paying its executives and stock holders? Unlike most trade associations, MPBBA is a for-profit corporation. According to MPBBA’s filings at the Missouri Secretary of State's Office , there are 30,000 shares of stock available to be issued, or maybe they have already issued the stock, who knows?

Some will say that the bail bond bills do not specifically reference MPBBA, but only say “a state association”. The bail association does not have to identify itself by name to reap the harvest of legislated status. Take a look at this law regarding the training of school board members by “a state-wide association” for school boards. The law did not name a specific school board association. It didn’t have to in order for the Missouri School Boards Association (MSBA) to be the sole association for school boards. And having a law requiring the existence of a state association certainly sealed its future sustainability. Plus, this state-required training became a new revenue stream for the association.

When the MPBBA sponsored legislation in 2005 to force bail and recovery agents to join “a state-wide association,” I testified before the Missouri Senate opposing this language. Forced association was a bad idea and thankfully the bill failed. This is a back-door approach to make you financially support the agenda of the association, whether or not you personally support their agenda. The association wants to buy instant credibility and wealth by passing legislation which requires bail agents to financially support the work of the association. It’s a bad idea.

1. If you don't want a new $10 tax on each bond you write….
2. If you do not want the association to nominate bail bond board members who will oversee your business by holding the power for the "licensing, educating, supervising, and disciplining of all general bail bond agents, bail bond agents, and surety recovery agents in this state"…..
3. If you do not want the authority of the Department of Insurance transferred to this newly created bail bond board…..
4. If you don't want the association to be the only provider of all bail and recovery training ...
5. If you do not want a law requiring the existence of a bail association......

Please sign and return this petition. For those who have already done so, many thanks for your support.

Bail Bond Power Grab

Bail Association Seeks to Strip Oversight by DIFP

The Missouri Professional Bail Bond Association, Inc., (MPBBA) is at it again this year. They have two bills floating around the Capitol this session, SB1247 and HB2454. Like past years, the association would like to pass legislation that will feed revenues to the association and require its continued existence. This year, the association is promoting a bail bond board. The association will nominate members to serve on the board. The association will have exclusive rights to provide initial and continuing education to bail and recovery agents, so your choice of education providers will be gone.

This is what the changes would mean to you and your bail bond business:

The language strips all authority from the Department of Insurance (DIFP) and transfers it to the newly created bail bond board.

There will be a $10 tax on every bond you write in the State of Missouri. This tax will be collected every time you write a bond. This tax will be distributed to pay the cost of collecting the tax and to pay the costs of the new board. There has been no published cost analysis to verify if this tax will even cover the costs for paying the board members, executive, investigative, and support staff, as well as other overhead of maintaining offices. (In Arkansas, the bail bond board tax is currently $70 with every level of government getting a cut of the tax.)

The association (there can only be one state-sanctioned association) will nominate 3 bail bond/general agents to serve on the board. A quorum to conduct business is 4 board members.

The board will be responsible for licensing, education, discipline, and rule-making for all bail and recovery agents. In other words, your competitors will be overseeing your business. There is no term-limit on the office of board member.

The association hopes you will overlook this power grab by telling you that this bill offers you a six month remission on judgments. Read the whole bill, not just the highlights published in the association newsletter.

I urge you to get involved this year. Read the bill and think about the consequences to your business. If you disagree with the philosophy of the bail association running your business through a board, I urge you to sign and return this petition. Let your voice be heard. Let those who represent you at the Capitol know that this is a flawed idea for the bail industry.

Analysis of Bail Bond Bills

Bart Cooper submitted the following analysis of SB1247 and HB2454. He owns Freedom Bonding, LLC, and Bart Cooper Bail Bonds in the Kansas City area. You can visit his website here.

Issues/concerns surrounding establishment of a “Professional Bail Bonds Board”

Overview: The bill strips the DIFP of authority to license, supervise, discipline and educate bail and recovery agents. Instead, such powers shall vest in a Professional Bail Bonds Board consisting of nine members (four general agents, two bail agents, one law enforcement officer, one circuit clerk and one public member). Members of the Board shall be appointed by the Governor.

Functional Concerns:

1) The DIFP structure for licensing, supervision, discipline & education is well-planned and substantial. The legislation sets forth no plans regarding infrastructure necessary to achieve the stated purposes. Apparently, legislative proponents assume that members of the board will possess the requisite expertise to create and maintain such an infrastructure.
2) No analysis exists regarding the financial solvency of the Board and its employees. The Board will be funded by imposing a ten dollar per bond tax on each bond written by a licensed agent. Notwithstanding the procedural difficulties in imposing and collecting such a fee, no evidence exists establishing the sufficiency of said fee. A review of other jurisdictions reveals a substantially higher fee per bond.
3) No ability to issue cease and desist orders exists.
4) No mechanism exists for policing the Board. The proposed legislation does not provide a solution should Board members act inappropriately. While the Governor may remove a Board member for just cause, no standards for just cause exist.
5) Discipline by the Board would likely be arbitrary and capricious. No standards exist for discipline. Since Board members would possess an economic incentive to discipline (eliminate) their competition, the expected result would be just that.
6) No mechanism exists for auditing Board members’ expenses.
7) While all “regular” meetings shall be open to the public, the legislation does not delineate what constitutes a regular meeting or what must be discussed at these meetings.
8) The bill requires attempted notice within 48 hours of a forfeiture being listed with the department. The language is problematic since there is no requirement that the department (assumed to be DIFP) notify the board. Additionally, actual notice is not required, only an attempt to notify must be made.
9) The bill fails to expand the 15-year felony clause to prohibit all felons from entering the bail industry.

Philosophical Concerns:

Individuals with an economic interest in reducing competition will be placed in the position to do just that. Nearly all will agree that the DIFP is a neutral party who gains no economic advantage in enforcing bail laws. Such transparency is vital to the legitimacy of enforcement. Most members of the Board, however, will benefit in seeing their competitors disciplined. Less bond agents means more bonds for the agents remaining in the industry. Thus, a clear economic benefit and an equally clear conflict of interest is present.

If you disagree with transferring the authority of the DIFP to a newly created bail bond board, please join us in making your opinion known. Download this petition, sign it and return it to the address listed.

Bait and Switch

Subverting the Public’s Right to be Heard

You’ve heard of the fraudulent merchandising practice called bait-and-switch. A retailer lures in customers by advertising a product at a low price and then tells customers that the advertised product is not available but you can buy a substitute at a higher price. Bait-and-switch is also a political term used to describe how bills can be passed while avoiding required public discussion. A bill is proposed (the bait) with the ultimate objective of substantially changing the wording at a later time. The original bill is scheduled for a hearing to meet legal requirements for public notice and discussion. A substitute bill is later submitted (the switch), thus bypassing the objective of public discussion on the real language proposed. While the bait-and-switch trick is technically legal, it is ethically and morally reprehensible, because the political objective is to get legislation or rules passed without anticipated negative community review.

That is exactly what happened at the public hearing I attended last Tuesday on SB869 in the Capitol in Jefferson City. The original bill was noticed for public hearing. I prepared written and oral testimony based upon the version of the bill which was advertised in the public hearing notice. When Senator Wes Shoemyer was called upon to introduce his bill, he announced that he was submitting a substitute bill. The substitute was distributed only to the committee members at the hearing. Since the public had no access to the substitute, they could not be prepared to testify about the provisions under consideration by the committee.

Senator Shoemyer then introduced me to testify in support of his substitute. I was stunned to be called as a witness on a bill I had never had the opportunity to review. I explained to the committee that I felt placed in an awkward position by being called to testify in favor of a bill I had never seen. I further explained that I was not given an opportunity to review the sub and I wasn’t prepared to testify concerning language I had not reviewed.

Blind-sided by the bait-and-switch, I told the committee I had come to testify concerning the original SB869, which only proposed the removal of five words-"within the past fifteen years"- from the bail statutes. Those five little words became known as the Lee Clause after SB1122 passed in 2004. The Lee Clause became law after bondsman Virgil Lee Jackson lobbied for a change in the statutes so he could obtain his general bail bond license. Jackson was an 8-time convicted felon and was unable to get a general bail license. Jackson and others hired lobbyist Steve Carroll and successfully added the 15-year clause allowing convicted felons to be licensed as long as the conviction was over 15 years old. The provision was hidden deep in a huge bill entitled "Dentistry" and passed in final days of session. The 15-year look-back was dubbed the “Lee Clause” since it was specifically crafted to allow Jackson to obtain his general license.

I explained to the committee how the courts have routinely held that the State of Missouri is placing its “seal of approval” upon an individual when it grants a state-issued professional license. The public can then have faith and confidence in the licensee because he/she has obtained this approval. I detailed Jackson’s criminal past and how he was granted a bail bond license in 1996, even though he had served approximately 20 years in state and federal prisons for eight separate felonies he committed over his lifetime. Shortly after the Lee Clause became law in 2005, Jackson was arrested for conspiring to murder his competitor, former Missouri State Representative Jerry Cox. Jackson is now serving 10 more years in a federal prison. I also testified that licensing felons like Jackson damages the integrity of the bail industry, it is bad public policy for the state, and undermines the citizens’ trust in the credibility of all state-issued professional licenses.

The bail bond association lobbyist, Steve Carroll, spoke in favor of the substitute that others were denied the opportunity to review.

Senator Frank Barnitz had signed on as co-sponsor of the original bill just after the session began. I spoke with Senator Barnitz after the hearing and he informed me of his displeasure that he was not notified of the substitute. Barnitz said that co-sponsors expect the courtesy of reviewing the proposed substitute language if his/her name is on the bill. He said that he is opposed to the changes proposed by the bail association and Senator Shoemyer, and only supported the bill as it was originally filed.

The Elections Committee has not met since the hearing to determine whether it will pass the bill, amend the bill, or even take up the bill at all. The committee chair, Senator Delbert Scott, has extended an invitation to submit written testimony on the substitute prior to any decision of the committee.

Although pulling a bait-and-switch is a legal and accepted political maneuver, it certainly subverts the public’s right to be heard in a “public hearing.”

Previous Posts on SB869
Hearing Scheduled
Barnitz Co-Sponsors SB869
Shoemyer Pre-Files SB869

SB869 to be Heard by Senate Committee

SB869 will have a hearing this coming Tuesday, January 22, 2008, at 2:30 PM. The bill will be heard by the Senate Financial, Governmental Organizations, and Elections Committee.

The bill seeks to repeal the Lee Clause, which has allowed convicted felons whose convictions are over 15 years old, to be licensed. The language in the bill will prohibit felons regardless of when the conviction occurred.

The bracketed red text in the following statute is proposed to be deleted in SB869:

RSMO 374.755. 1. 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 [within the past fifteen years] in a criminal prosecution under any state or federal law for a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude whether or not a sentence is imposed, prior to issuance of license date;

The committee members are as follows:

Delbert Scott, 28th, Chair
Jason Crowell, 27th, Vice-Chair
Kevin Engler, 3rd
Brad Lager, 12th
John Loudon, 7th
Maida Coleman, 5th
Jolie Justus, 10th
Harry Kennedy, 1st
Jeff Smith, 4th

If you have an opinion to share, I encourage you to attend the hearing or contact your senator. If you don't know your senator, use this handy tool.

Previous Posts
Barnitz Co-sponsors SB869
Shoemyer Files SB869-

Senator Barnitz Co-Sponsors SB869

Senator Frank Barnitz-D, Lake Spring, has signed on as a co-sponsor of Senator Shoemyer’s bail bond bill, SB869. The legislative session began last week and the bill received its first reading in the Missouri Senate.

The bill seeks to remove the clause which allows felons to become licensed if the conviction is over 15 years old.

The statute currently reads:

374.755. 1. 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 within the past fifteen years in a criminal prosecution under any state or federal law for a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude whether or not a sentence is imposed, prior to issuance of license date;

Senators Shoemyer and Barnitz seek to remove the words “with the past fifteen years” from the above statute, making the law prohibit felons regardless of when the conviction occurred.

My previous post on SB869