The following comments were submitted for the proposed ballot - 2017.03 Inadequate Records; Unreported Jurisdictions' Assessment.
||American Trucking Association
||Oppose. This would impose a new kind of penalty in IRP. There is no need for it, and the amendment seems poorly conceived.
(1) The current language of Sec. 1005 was designed to make plain to a registrant that it needed to keep records for audit. It was NOT designed to make ANY jurisdiction whole – in the absence of decent records, how could it?
(2) The newly proposed $50 penalty looks just like a minimum fee, which IRP specifically forbids – and for good reason. That’s not a road IRP wants to venture down, even with much better reason than there is here.
(3) The current language is supposed to keep auditors from wasting time on a set of records that are inadequate. The proposal would encourage them to look through what little they have to find $50 discrepancies.
(4) Finally, there are problems with the language of the proposal. It’s just a bad idea.
||Washington Department of Licensing
||We are concerned the $50.00 is clearly a penalty. We understand the other percentages are based on registration fees. This is clearly not based on registration fees and we would oppose this ballot.
||Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
||Virginia looks forward to further discussion of the ballot; however, our initial inclination is to not support the proposal. We have some basic philosophical concerns about making such adjustments when it has been determined that the carrier’s records are not auditable. The additional fee appears to be punitive in nature. We also believe the proposal poses fairness and equity concerns as audit practices will vary by jurisdiction, resulting in carriers based in some jurisdictions being held to a higher standard. Over time those equity concerns could result in a push for additional audit requirements being imposed on jurisdictions to proactively seek out violation, inspection and other information.
||Alabama & Audit Committee Vice Chair
||For clarification to MB's question. The current language requires the percentage assessment be based on the fees originally paid, and the distribution of that assessment is only to those jurisdictions where fees were paid; therefore, unreported jurisdictions would not be included because no fees were paid. The remedy for any unreported jurisdiction would be an additional $50 assessment, which would be assessed for, and distributed to, each unreported jurisdiction.
|| Manitoba Public Insurance
||The ballot states that we are to levy 20 percent from the original invoiced amount then allocate it proportionately to all affected jurisdictions (reported and unreported). Then we are to levy a $50 fee for every jurisdiction where distance was not reported. How is that fee to be distributed??