Skip Maine state header navigation

Agencies | Online Services | Help

Skip First Level Navigation | Skip All Navigation

Home > Motor Carrier Service > Motor Carrier Review Board > Special Meeting September 21, 2005

MOTOR CARRIER REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES
Special Meeting September 21, 2005

The Special Meeting of the Motor Carrier Review Board to discuss issues surrounding the Governor's Task Force on Perpetual Violators relating to Motor Carriers was held at the Maine Motor Transport Association building in Augusta, Maine.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

All

 

STAFF PRESENT:

BMV Motor Carrier Services:  Garry Hinkley, Francis Fox, Patrick Malloy, Dolores Hayes

 

Mark Hutchins, President called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. to review the Secretary of State's Charge to the Board.

 

Garry Hinkley thanked Dale Hanington of Maine Motor Transport Association for hosting the meeting and the Board members for meeting on such short notice. He acknowledged that the Secretary of State appreciates their efforts.

 

In review, Garry stated that at last month's meeting, Chip Gavin representing the Secretary of State asked the Board to work on some of the issues surrounding the problems of perpetually bad drivers as it pertains to motor carriers and individual truck drivers. He asked the Board to review their procedures, Rules and Laws and to make any recommendations they feel are appropriate. He specifically asked the Board to consider whether their procedures adequately address smaller, by smaller we are talking one and two truck motor carriers, so-called independents, and also whether anything can or should be done regards to brokers, and also individual problem drivers driving for carriers.

 

Chip asked the Board to make a report by early December.

 

The Board accepted the assignment and the Secretary of State is very appreciative of that.

 

Garry presented the list of definitions he created for this meeting to be reviewed by the Board. Other issues included brokers, and to find out how the Canadians treat the owner/operator situation.

 

Garry stated he was still waiting to receive information about brokers and will provide that to the Board at a later time.

 

After Garry's review of the Secretary of State's charge to the Board, Mark Hutchins, Chair, called for the meeting to continue following the agenda where the next item was to review and edit the definition document.

 

Garry presented the list of definitions document and suggested uses for the document.

•  Could be an appendix to any report the Board makes

•  Or as an educational tool.

 

George questions and requests copies of forms referred to under the Broker definition and Dale supplies the forms for the Board's perusal. Discussion followed regarding The OP-1 form, and The MCS-150 Federal Form.

 

Garry discussed the Broker information he was able to find on the FMCSA website. Basically, brokers are not required to do very much. They have to keep track of whom they deal with. The do have to register with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. But the information basically suggests that they are prohibited from having much influence over the motor carrier. They were some prohibitions against brokers owning carriers and carriers owning brokers, etc. It is quite clear, Garry reported, that they wanted to keep an arms length between the Brokering Company and the motor carrier.

 

Dale drew a diagram on the board to better describe the problem.

mcrb 092105 diagram

A shipper may contract directly with a motor carrier to obtain transportation services. The carrier may use company drivers to drive company trucks; may use owner-operators who own their own trucks but are controlled by the carrier; or some combination.

 

Alternatively, a shipper may use a broker to arrange transportation services. The broker matches the load with an available motor carrier. Typically, these carriers will be smaller, "independent" carriers.

 

George questioned the definition of Operating Authority. Permission is granted by the BMV whether explicit or implicit to operate as a carrier. Is that the one form that every carrier must have or is there a form they must fill out requiring certain information.

 

Garry informed the Board that every carrier is required to have a DOT # providing their information to BMV. Operating Authority in Maine is that every motor carrier has implicit authority to operate in Maine so long as they obey the Laws. Whether they are actually required to file something or not. This includes ICC-regulated carriers having Single State Registration Operating Authority; Maine ICC-exempt Interstate Authority; Intrastate For-Hire Authority. Private carriers have de facto Authority to conduct their business. Any of which can be taken away for cause.

 

George: So there is no application for Authority per se?

 

Garry: There is for certain types of Authority. If you want to be an Interstate For- Hire carrier, there is an application for that. If you want to be an ICC exempt, there is an application for that.

 

George: How about the Owner Operator? The guy with one truck that wants to drive and he may be hauling exempt commodities today or regulated commodities the next?

 

Garry: If he is hauling For Hire and he is hauling commodities of any type, he has to have the appropriate authority.

 

George: If he is leased onto somebody?

 

Garry: If he is leased onto somebody, he is not a motor carrier any longer. He is an owner-operator operating under the lessee carrier's authority.

 

Garry further explained that UCR provisions/options-DOT # required; will close loophole on exempt and private carriers; option to bring intrastate into UCR-questions posed to Feds; Maine is leaning toward intrastate authority for >26,000 lbs. Operators of vehicles of 26,000 pounds of less usually are not in the trucking business. Typically these are service providers such as plumbers, landscapers, etc.

 

A discussion followed and the Board agreed that the independent motor carrier is a problem, often with no operating authority. The problem comes with trying to identify and track these small carriers. All agreed when acting as a carrier his own operating authority is needed. It is important to close the loophole that allows carriers of exempt commodities to obtain a USDOT number without having to provide insurance and obtain authority.

 

George requested that Registrant be added to the list of Definitions.

Garry: Your absolutely right registrant should be in there. That will be Registrant in terms of safety requirements under the federal PRISM program.

 

Garry asked whether they wanted to modify the definition of owner/operator. It is Independent Contractor that is causing the confusion.

 

It appeared in discussion that no change needs to be made.

 

George requested that a chart be made of types of carriers, i.e. Owner/Operator, Broker, Leased Driver, and have the requirements of each one on a line such as insurance. Exempt carriers do not require insurance but the other carriers do. Operating Authority, Yes, Yes, NO, Maybe. That way would it would simplify it for me.

 

Garry: It might be a 3-dimensional chart but we can do something along those lines.

Francis: Do you want the chart as of now or per UCR.

 

George: Show now as well as after UCR.

 

Being nothing further on the definitions we moved on to the next item on the agenda.

 

The minutes of this meeting will be transcribed and you will receive them well in advance of the next meeting.

 

3. Discussion of the 8/26/05 Draft Recommendations Memo;

 

George: The 2 nd bullet down. "Add possession of drugs/alcohol violations to the list of violations the Motor Carrier Review Board considers and assign an appropriate point value. Would that be in a commercial motor vehicle?

 

Garry: That would be in a commercial motor vehicle.

 

Dale expressed the opinion that he felt the responsibility for possession of alcohol or drugs in a commercial vehicle falls squarely on the shoulders of the drivers. Employers in Maine hands are tied what he can and can't do when it comes to alcohol and drug testing of the drivers. Maine Law very clearly discourages that type of testing. I don't think you can send the message both ways. Number 1 we want you to have hands off but yet when something happens we want to hold you completely responsible.

 

Garry: We can put that into the draft report and see what happens.

 

Garry reported that he did talk to Bob O'Connel who is an expert on Commercial Driver's Licenses. He wanted to bring a couple of things to your attention

 

First is that CDL requirements are being tightened up per Federal requirements. As of Oct. 1, 2005 , violations committed in personal vehicle are going to count against the CDL.

 

Dale: For certain violations.

 

Ron: It's not going to be for drug and alcohol?

 

Dale: It is the same list of violations that used to take and suspend you as far as you would get it in a CVISN and commercial vehicle but now if you commit those same types of violations in a private vehicle they will go to add up to a serious offences issue.

 

Ron: Ok Now.

 

Dale: Of course there is some that are very specific as far as dealing drugs out of a commercial vehicle, now that is a category that says you have to have a commercial vehicle in order to do that on. But speeding more than 15 or more miles above the speed limit, reckless and erratic driving, improper lane change, causing a fatality, moving traffic violation.

 

Ron: The alcohol .08 in a private vehicle. Now, .04 in a commercial vehicle is that going to be the same in a private, .04.

 

Dale: No. Still you would have to have the .08 in order to get convicted for operating under the influence in the private vehicle but that violation will carry over to the suspension on your CDL. Because you did get convicted of operating under the influence or be it a higher level in a commercial vehicle. That offence carries over and does affect us.

 

Garry: George asked, " Can they lose their CDL and retain their Class C license. The answer is yes. They can lose their CDL for various reasons and still keep their Class C.

 

Of course we know that Carriers are supposed to obtain the driver's records before hiring.

 

George: That is once a year?

 

Steven: Are they required?

 

Garry: Yes, they are required.

 

Dale: They are required. But how that would get caught up with is more an audit where they go in and take a check. But it is a violation if they didn't do it. Not only is it a requirement that you check the driver's record it is also that you review it with the driver and he can sign off that those are all the violations that have actually occurred. So it is a 2-step process.

 

Garry: In this state it is pretty easy to get driver license records. You can subscribe through INFORME and actually have them sent to you. It is a problem for large national carriers dealing with drivers based in multiple states to get complete driving records. I suppose even for Maine carriers with Maine drivers with out-of-state violations sometimes it can be a problem. All that information is supposed to come to the home state. Most of the time it does, but some of the time it doesn't. So there are issues there.

 

Dale: That's one of the problems with trying to do these background check on drivers is that you are somewhat limited as to just exactly what it is that they will release. Even some states that are relatively easy to get the check out of, sometimes all you get is yes they have a CDL and this is the expiration date. They really don't release the record. That doesn't do much good for the company that they really don't get the record to come along with it and there is six or eight states that don't allow an employer to get records. The only way you can get the record is through the actual employee.

 

While we are on that, there is a problem with being able to check drivers and try to figure out whether you would want these types of drivers or not. There is a three year window usually in most states, to get history as far as driving records are concerned, and there are a lot of places Law Enforcement can check that companies could not check. What you end up with and where we see it most frequently is New York . The end up suspending a driver and it does not come back and hit on the Maine record. The Maine Motor Carrier runs the license on the driver and it comes back clean because Motor Vehicle here does not have that suspension. The driver goes down the road with a load of freight, gets stopped, the police check a different system and find out he is under suspension in New York and by being under suspension in New York, he's under suspension in every state in the nation and that is the way it works. So now the carrier has a truck out here with a driver who is under suspension in New York but they did their due diligence, looked like it was a good driver. Now they have to get a new driver to get onto the vehicle and get that driver squared away. I know at least at the Federal level people are trying to expand the areas of which employers can act. If you want the employer to be the police officer, in this case basically you [the state] are telling you [the carrier] that is what you want, the proper tools have to be provided. They want to condemn you for putting poor drivers out there, but they don't want to give you the information that will say that this is a poor driver. If you are going to be restricted on what it is you can get for information, then also you should be restricted on what your liability is. You can only operate on the information that is available to you. That is a problem area.

 

George: Should that be one of our recommendations?

Dale: I think it should be.

Garry: We will put it in there.

Dale: There again, I don't think we have control but it is one of the things that should be noted that it is a problem. I can't remember now but on CDL drivers do we go back further that 3-years now?

Garry: I don't know.

Dale: If most of you remember when we have the driver checks that come before the Board we go back to when they were a kid. Obviously some of that information isn't valuable but there is information that may not be as dated as you may want to think that if you were to run a check. Who knows what the right amount is. Three years ago a particular driver has a whole bunch of problem. But in the last three years he hasn't had any problems. You send in a check, you get a three year check and he looks like an angel. Then you put him to work and he comes out as a crash and the entire record becomes available and then the motor carrier is questioned with "How in the world did you ever put a driver like this on when he had 23 suspensions etc. But in the window that you had available to you, you were doing the right thing.

 

Garry: I will check to see what it is. I suspect it is three years still. Do you want to recommend that window be expanded?

Dale: I think it is one of those things that needs to come before the Board.

 

Garry: Understand that they are required to check only three years and anything prior to that is invisible to them.

 

Dale: It seems to me that the CDL history that they did allow you to go back a little bit further.

 

[Driver license record checks soon will be available for ten years, in addition to three years.]

 

Garry: It occurs to me that one of the definitions I didn't include that needs to go in here is probably Commercial Driver License Information Systems . We are supposed to check with Law Enforcement, which unfortunately I cannot do for you here. If you go out over the American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrative network you can check driver license information on anyone, in this case commercial drivers in all the states.

 

Ron: Secretary of State, when he's checking or when they are checking licenses regardless of whether he is a CDL or a driver of an automobile. They are keeping a pretty close tab on his license aren't they.

 

Garry: When we officially renew a driver's license, they run that information through CDLIS or through the AAMVA net system. It goes out and checks against all the other states information. If you are suspended in one state your suspended. As Dale said some of that stuff can be really old or very arcane. A lot of stuff in New York goes back to a lot of things we might not consider. That may be why it doesn't get transmitted to the home states.

 

Ron: We have seen a lot of licenses that have been bad over the years. They are going to work for carriers. As Dale was saying, they bounce from one carrier to another but yet they haven't lost their license but they've just remained under the threshold of losing it. How do we take and say this particular driver shouldn't be working for this carrier?

 

Garry: I don't know. There is no standard for making those judgments. Even today, I don't know what a carrier does. They see the record then they have to make their own personal judgment whether they want to hire this guy, right?

 

Ron: Insurance companies. I have had some insurance companies call me and say I want you to go and do a defensive driving course for this company. As in insurance, when you look at a company, you are looking at the drivers themselves also, right?

 

Alan: Your looking at the drivers and the history of the company, the quality of the equipment, the age of the equipment etc.

 

George: But they are looking at the drivers?

 

Alan: That is probably the #1 thing the quality of the drivers.

 

Ron: You are looking at the training they are getting if the company is doing any safety training, so you are looking at that also?

 

Alan: What could happen though is your policy renews on the 1 st of January and they go through the underwriting process and December and you have 20 drivers and they are all pretty good and then January 15 th you hire 5 lousy drivers and the following year they might just do a light touch on the underwriting, so it might be almost 2-years before they pull the motor vehicle records of the group of drivers again and find out that you hired 5 bad guys in the mean time.

 

Ron: So that is a loophole there.

 

Alan: Eventually we catch up to them but it might be a year or two before that happens.

 

Dale: Usually they bring on each individual driver. They don't have to go back to the insurance carrier to get approval for bringing on any particular one.

 

Alan: Some companies will say, we will insure your whole operation except John Doe and makes the carrier sign an affidavit saying that John Doe won't be driving for the company.

 

George: Does the insurance company use the same database to check drivers as the motor carrier does or do they have a different one. At least the carrier and the insurance company are looking at the driver the same way. It is the Law Enforcement that has access to the large database.

 

Steven: But if a guy had a bad driving record and he was clean for a year you might believe he got his act together.

 

Dale: That works until you have one of these tragic accidents. Now all of a sudden the whole thing gets dragged back out again and it's the employer.This whole decision on whether you bring on somebody or whether you don't falls into negligent hiring or negligent firing.

 

Dale: I did check with the staff on a few of our recent MVRs.

 

And just to explain on that year thing so that everybody does understand. The driver has to be reviewed at least once every 12-months. It is once a year but it may not be the whole fleet of drivers.

 

Ron: This is probably being done, as you say the Secretary of State is already looking at them, but if we get a carrier that comes before us, we are looking at that carrier but we are also looking at the carrier's drivers' records.

 

Garry: Let me go back to a point that Dale made. We used to give you voluminous driving individual driving records. We did a large carrier, and we decided at some point we were just killing too many trees. Do you want to see those individual reports again because, (obviously things Patrick will have to do) but we can give those to you and fill up your books again. We always have them.

 

Patrick: I have them on file.

 

Ron: Personally, I would like to see them.

Mark: Would it make more sense, whether do it in every instance if you could bring to our attention the worst 10% of the driver population.

Garry: We can do a couple of things. We can decide to give it to you routinely except in those cases where it would be so voluminous it would kill too many trees or just bring in the highlights. Whichever you prefer. We always do have them.

 

George: You are looking at them anyway?

 

Garry: Absolutely.

Mark: Why don't we leave it to them the ones worth showing to us?

Ron: I would like to see if this particular carrier has 3 drivers that are bad. Then I think we need to look at them. Why can't we make a recommendation to the Secretary of State to say, keep an eye on this driver, red flag him.

Garry: We certainly can do that. There is a process for reviewing drivers anyway. The point system doesn't get assessed against motor carrier type violations. Certainly we can do that. Pick the driver that you have identified as having a problem as a motor carrier driver, commercial driver. We should pass that information along to CDL people. Let them apply their rules.

So you want us to give you the last 5 years of only the bad drivers. We can use the staff's discretion.

 

We can give you a list of all the drivers we looked at so if you want to make some judgment about only 3% of their drivers have problems. We can do that also so you can have some basis for your analysis. Ok that is easy enough. And if you want to make recommendations of a driver to Commercial Driver License we can do that to.

 

Ron: I don't know how we do it but that particular driver is bouncing from one carrier to another. Apparently that carrier is not getting the full information. We are going to get 5-years of it but if we can look at the Secretary of State or make a recommendation to Commercial: Look at this guy who is becoming a pain to everybody. What do we do then? What does the Secretary of State do? What are the CDL Laws.

 

The Secretary of State can only do what is on the Law Books right?

 

Garry: Basically.

 

Ron: I would think we are treading into an area now where somebody is going to say you are infringing on this guy's rights.

 

Dale: #1 The reason why the Secretary of State doesn't necessarily pick up the bad drivers as maybe we look at that has been alluded to a couple of times, is not all of these violations as points come to light.

 

George: Can we make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. Can the Secretary of State do anything about it?

 

Garry: I would say probably yes. Something would have to be fleshed out.

 

George: If there are Laws on the books that he accumulates only points.

 

Dale: Well it doesn't say that exactly. I think what they have the authority to do is be able to suspend somebody on their driving record. But the way that that record gets brought to their attention is through the point system. You could take the example of 5 violations for log book violation to the driver.

 

After a discussion it was suggested perhaps the Board come up with a new RSR for driving license.

 

Garry: Probably no reason to have RSR per se. The reason to have an RSR is to treat carriers of a different sizes equally. Now you are talking about an individual. All individuals are created equal after all.

 

Mark: That's true.

 

Garry: Some point value result would trigger something. It could be your recommendation to be considered .

 

Alan: One difference though between our ability to value carrier vs. individuals is that we bring carriers before the Board and they have the ability to defend themselves. Whereas at this point don't have the authority to bring individuals before the board.

 

Garry: You may want to send them right to a regular Motor Vehicle hearing rather than have them come to the Board. You can recommend whichever you prefer but my advice would be to send them to some sort of hearing before a hearing's officer who deals with driver's license suspensions.

 

George: That mechanism is already in place right?

 

Garry: They have no way of getting there in the first place.

 

George: I like Dale's idea but I think for yourself we adopt Dale's idea is while we think we are going after an individual we may in fact find out that it is a single owner operator and he does come before the Board. The other guy goes to the Hearing Examiner. I think that is how we are going to get these owner operators.

 

Ron: One other thing. We have a system out there right now that I am running up against. We have a driver that has to get some of his points back. He takes a defensive driving course. He gets 3-points back on his license. Now he is back on the road. The following year he goes back in again, same driver, gets 3-more points added to his license because he is right on the border again. He is going to lose it again. Now this driver is continuous but let me tell you something. He can go and do a driving dynamics class, as long as he sits in that class, he doesn't have to participate or nothing and he gets 3-points added to his license, he is back on the road. Regardless or whether he is a CDL operator or a driver of an automobile. He is that borderline. And he still keeps that license.

 

I had a company that did this and I wouldn't go back and do any more because I was looking at three drivers that were doing the same thing to get their license back continually. Basically what happened, these guys got suspended. But when they take that other class, that automobile class, there are no Rules and Regulations and I think that is where we have to tighten up.

 

Garry: That sounds like a general recommendation for the entire report not just for Motor Carriers. We will make note of that and pass it along. Sitting in the class is not enough. There needs to be some sort of.

Steven: You can do it once but you can't do it again for 3 or 4 years or something.

Ron: I have a pass or fail criteria.

Garry: Does everyone?

 

Ron: No, only in my class.

Garry: It is certainly a good recommendation. We could put it into a draft and see what happens to it.

Ron: A guy running every year that way is trouble to anyone.

 

Mark: What about the CDL?

 

Garry: As I said we can do it a couple of different ways. Do you want the driver coming before you?

 

Mark: No.

 

George: Only if he owns a truck and is a carrier.

 

Garry: If he is a carrier or some sort or even a vehicle registrant.

 

Mark: So you can give us the top 20?

 

Garry: Of drivers? Is this only as the result of reviews of carriers or do you want us to look for drivers independent?

 

Mark: I think it ought to be independent. Otherwise we may never see the end.

 

George: Can you identify the drivers and see if they are carriers in fact? Then they come before us.

 

Garry: We do that anyway.

 

After a discussion of how to get to drivers who were owner operators so that they would come before the Board.

 

Garry suggested Patrick ask for companies with 3 or more violations instead of 4 or more. The staff will expand the list starting for the next meeting to 3 or more violations.

 

Dale: Are things improving to the point where we can tighten the review period so that it is closer to the time we are actually pulled in, because it is usually about a year old. I find it frustrating when we get someone in here and we are looking at violations that happened two years ago and the driver hasn't worked for him for 18-months. If we could get closer maybe we could strike when the iron is hot.

 

Garry: The next list we are going to ask to review for will be July 04 to June 05. It is already September so in order to do the work we can't take it much closer. The carriers we show you everything up to the present as close as we can. It becomes part of your information that you can analyze. The 12-month window is basically just an entry point to get them into the process for you to look at. After they are in you get to look at both before and after that period and weigh it accordingly.

 

Mark: What about widening that. Can we look at an 18-month period instead of a 12-month period?

 

Garry: We were suggesting that we could look at both simultaneously and you could make a judgment based on that information.

 

Mark: What we would be doing, we'd be going back an additional 6-months.

What are people's feelings on that:

 

George: I agree with it.

 

Garry: We could make that as a recommendation and it would require a Rule change.

 

Mark: So everything will stay the same because you are going to have additional mileage.

 

Garry: Yes

 

Break for 5 minutes

 

Discuss adding speeding to a commercial motor vehicle.

 

George made a motion to adopt a two-scale point system of minor speeding (0-14mph over ) 2 points and 15 or more mph over) 4 points.

 

Ron seconded the motion.

Vote 6-0-Alan left before vote.

 

Discuss problems unique to reviewing smaller carriers

 

Mark: Have we said anything about reducing violations yet?

 

Garry: Only that we are going to internally reduce our initial report criteria from 4 down to 3 so we will cast a wider net initially to perhaps bring in some more smaller carriers for internal staff review. Which may or may not get them on the top 20 list.

 

Dale: That is only a procedure you go through that is not a Rule?

 

Garry: Right. That is just our internal procedure. We are going to do that anyways.

 

Dale: That takes no action from the Board.

 

Garry: Right

 

Garry: I think we talked about going to the 18-month as well as the 12-month review.

 

Dale: I would like to hear what others had to say regarding the Drugs and Alcohol.

 

Steven: The company is lined up and I agree that it is a driver thing. But I think if a driver gets two of them with the same company then the company has some responsibility. In my opinion if the guys operating under the influence in a commercial vehicle if he worked for me he would be gone and he should be gone. He gets another one with the same company then I think the company is missing something.

 

Bruce: Can anyone refresh my memory on what the company can do?

 

Dale: You have two different perspectives. The one in the Federal Law gives you quite a bit of latitude, because it is specific, you cannot possess the stuff etc. while operating a motor vehicle. However, you are talking owner operators again who don't have to comply with the FMCSA rules.

 

Mark: There isn't a state law prohibiting alcohol in a truck?

 

Dale: Not to the best of my knowledge.

 

After a discussion by the board members, George made a motion to adopt adding possession of "illegal" drugs/alcohol violations in a "Commercial Vehicle" as a serious violation, 5 points. And Ron seconded. Dale expressed concerns - he agreed it was a serious problem, but thought the act falls on the shoulders of the driver, not the carrier, vote was unanimous, 6-0 )Alan had left the meeting prior to the vote.

 

Garry: The process for the report I assume is: We are going to do a report. We are going to give it to the Secretary of State. Secretary who in turn is going to incorporate that into a report to the Governor. Then after all that is approved, we are going to come back and make Rule changes.

 

Mark: We still have the issue about 5 or more serious violations. What are people's feelings on that.

 

Garry: 5 or more serious violations earns you a trip to the top 20 regardless of your RSR.

 

All we are saying here is if you have at least 3 serious violations we are going to do all the calculations and then if your RSR is high enough you would be on the top 20 list. In this case now 3 serious violations will get you on the least for initial presentation.

 

Mark: Is there a need for a Rule change.

 

Garry: Yes we do need a Rule change. This is not the internal staff review, this is the actual review criteria.

 

Dale made a motion that the staff comes up with the wording that would accomplish if you had 5 or more serious violations you would automatically be considered for review and also carriers who had 3 or more serious violations with an RSR above 15 be added to that review process for a Rule change, 2 nd by George. The vote of 6 unanimous with Alan having left the meeting earlier.

 

Garry: At this point I'm looking for recommendations to put into the final report so. If you want to vote on it that's fine.

 

Garry: And we are good on the 18-month review period as well as the 12-month period.

 

For what you just voted on, I would suggest that would still need to be 5. I wouldn't want to bring somebody in for 3 serious violations if over 18-months their RSR was not high enough. So I guess I would keep that at 5 in 18 months with an RSR of 15. We are going to look at it both ways with an RSR suggested for the time period.

 

Garry: 3 for 12 months, 5 for 18 months.

 

Dale: I guess that is what I am trying to go to. Do we need to straighten out what we just did to have it coincide with 18-months?

 

Garry: Let me write it up and circulate it. I understand what you are trying to accomplish. Let me put it down on paper and then we will go from there.

 

Mark: Ok. How about our next meeting date?

 

Garry: Do you want to meet again for this?

 

Mark: I think we should just to finalize this.

 

George: We don't even know what our list of recommendations is yet.

 

We need to see it.

 

Mark: When do you think we would have the information from this meeting?

 

Garry: By the middle of October we should have it put into a form to look at.

 

Mark: Next meeting to be held at: 1:00 on the 19 th at MMTA. [That meeting was cancelled.]