Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/20/1995 01:12 PM TRA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
 HTRA - 03/20/95                                                              
 HB 210 - PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSING/TESTING                              
 Number 017                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, Sponsor, introduced HB 210 and stated HB
 210 would mandate that the state set up a system where motor                  
 vehicle and driver license services could be provided to members of           
 the public by private sector agencies.  He explained HB 210 was a             
 comprehensive bill and costs the state nothing.  He explained all             
 the costs are borne by the private agencies.  He indicated it was             
 designed so the state could not write regulations making it cost              
 prohibitive for an agent to want to provide this service.  He                 
 explained the regulations have been imposed into the statute.  He             
 indicated there were 29 other states using private agencies to                
 provide this service to the public.  He stated it was past time for           
 Alaska to look into using private agencies.  He explained HB 210              
 was a complex bill.  He stated one of his major concerns was the              
 maintaining of the quality of information and services to the                 
 public.  He stated there were certain requirements for the                    
 qualifications.  He acknowledged there were representatives from              
 the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with positive suggestions                
 regarding HB 210.  He noted the DMV was independently exploring               
 similar areas.                                                                
 Number 064                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there were any questions.  Chairman Davis             
 asked if the Alaska DMV currently had contract offices.                       
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he was not aware of DMV's current                 
 structure as far as the contract office.  He stated the difference            
 seemed to lie with who the employees work for and not so much where           
 the offices are located.  He said he was not aware of any DMV                 
 services being issued by any agency other than state employees.               
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS commented that this is one of those, "Why didn't I             
 think of that" issues and acknowledged the DMV felt the same way.             
 Number 088                                                                    
 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles           
 (DMV), Department of Public Safety (DPS), explained that the DMV              
 currently has 13 contract agents that they contract with the police           
 departments throughout the state to perform the functions of the              
 DMV.  She stated the reason the DMV utilizes  the police                      
 departments as opposed to regular "public" sector is the computer             
 systems and the access available to them.  She stated they have               
 national as well as international data base systems that have to be           
 updated.  She indicated the police department already has their               
 computers in place, so there is no additional cost for setting them           
 up.  She mentioned the police department is paid according to the             
 volume of work they do which currently is fairly small.  She made             
 reference to a statement she requested to present and noted the DMV           
 was in the process of looking at various alternatives in offering             
 the public some assistance and to reduce lines at the DMV as well             
 as any complaints.                                                            
 Number 122                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated for the record that Representative Masek                
 arrived at 1:12 p.m.                                                          
 MS. HENSLEY continued to explain that HB 210 mandated the DMV to              
 contract out or privatize most of the DMV's functions.  She noted             
 that "privatization supporter claims that the viable method of                
 addressing the declining budget and it is a major progressive step            
 in conducting government business."  She commented on what may seem           
 like progress may not necessarily be progress and exemplified this            
 comment by explaining a state that widely used privatization for              
 DMV functions.  She indicated the state had only three DMV offices            
 with in state employees for the largest cities, and the functions             
 in more than 20 other locations were contracted out.                          
 MS. HENSLEY continued to explain, even in the cities with the state           
 offices there were multi-contract service providers.  She indicated           
 this was a form of privatization on a large scale as is currently             
 being proposed by HB 210.  She said the system was not without                
 problems.  She indicated the functions of the DMV were so many and            
 diverse that it was difficult to fit them into a large scale                  
 enforcement contract.  She stated that much of the DMV management             
 time was spent on contract administration training rather than                
 developing new programs.  She said the contract agents established            
 their own procedures rather than following a standard procedure so            
 that requirements to obtain a driver license or vehicle title                 
 varied from city to city.                                                     
 MS. HENSLEY noted because of privacy issues or technology                     
 restraints, the contract agents did not have computer access, thus            
 creating a three to six month wait for titles and licenses to be              
 processed by a central office rather than an instant issue                    
 procedure Alaska currently enjoys.  She mentioned the contracts               
 were lucrative, so many agents were awarded the contracts that                
 possibly should have been held by other people.  She indicated the            
 contracts were costly and reduced revenue from being returned to              
 the state.  She noted these problems rose to such a level that the            
 legislature demanded a change and created a "strong state DMV" with           
 a mandate to replace contract agents, improve service and reduce              
 cost.  She explained this mandate was accomplished over a five year           
 period as contract agents were replaced with state offices, which             
 were funded by costs previously paid by the contracts.  She                   
 explained the contract agents retained only small locations where             
 the contract costs were lower than that for having a state employee           
 in that particular location.  She mentioned all state offices were            
 connected to the main computer system so delays in issuing titles,            
 registrations and licenses were eliminated.  She said this example            
 of privatization was tried and the legislature demanded the change.           
 MS. HENSLEY stated the situation she just described occurred in               
 Alaska in the 1970s.  She explained the state of Alaska has tried             
 privatization with poor results and cautioned against recreating              
 the mistakes of the past.  She explained many of the mistakes in              
 the past can be avoided and noted that privatization is not                   
 applicable to all service problems.  Ms. Hensley indicated that in            
 most cases it would be more costly to the state of Alaska, whether            
 it comes from state revenue or contract costs for the citizens of             
 the state of Alaska.  She indicated that the DMV is not opposed to            
 the privatization of some of the functions of the DMV.  She                   
 explained when looking at the DMV's track record, they're                     
 initiating various "pilot projects" such as an emissions station              
 (IM) in Anchorage where, when a person comes into the station for             
 their IM inspection certificate they have the option of renewing              
 their registration at that time.  She added there are plans for               
 opening other IM stations in Anchorage and Fairbanks.  She stated             
 there were other areas being considered for IM stations such as               
 Kiosks, through the automatic teller machine (ATM) renewal process.           
 She explained the "hold back" with the ATM renewal process is the             
 fact the state is not equipped to pay the credit card fees                    
 required.  She added, the processing fee for the credit cards range           
 from 1.5 percent to 7.0 percent and DMV does not have the revenue             
 to do this.  Ms. Hensley requested the committee to go over some              
 amendments proposed by the DMV for HB 210.                                    
 Number 199                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there were any questions of Ms. Hensley.              
 He asked Ms. Hensley about past operations of the DMV within the              
 state, and did she have any expectations with a more computer                 
 literate society today versus in the 70s.                                     
 MS. HENSLEY indicated with the computer checkpoints, there is the             
 potential for greater audit control over computer literacy                    
 problems.  She indicated one of the requirements of HB 210 provides           
 for an agent to obtain a 95 percent error free and 5 percent error            
 factor.  She stated currently, DMV's contract agents being the                
 police departments have an error factor of 40 percent and includes            
 a lot of oversight and a great deal of errors made by the                     
 contracting agents.  She emphasized the need for a hold on the                
 contract agents in order to possibly restrain the amount of money             
 they receive, stated by their contract when having an error factor            
 as high as they do.  She regretted this subject was not addressed             
 in HB 210.  She explained it is time consuming to correct all their           
 errors even though it provides a service.                                     
 MS. HENSLEY noted the DMV contracted with the Skagway police                  
 department, Department of Public Safety, at North Slope Borough,              
 Petersburg, Wrangell, Craig, Cordova and Seward police departments.           
 She mentioned Homer has a DMV employee, and Glennallen has Alaska             
 state trooper employees, Nome and Talkeetna have a DMV employee               
 which is paid half-time by the DMV and the other half by the state            
 troopers (ST).  She stated there use to be more sites such as                 
 Galena and Nenana, but due to an extremely high error factor and              
 the volume of work in those areas they, were not awarded new                  
 contracts.  She stated they have the option of using mail service             
 or going in to the facilities.                                                
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated for the record that Representative Eileen               
 MacLean arrived at 1:20 p.m.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES stated as much of government that              
 can be privatized, the better, for numerous reasons and money is              
 one of them.  She stated she had been in contact with the                     
 department regarding the DMV office in Fairbanks.  She indicated              
 the DMV actually seemed to make more money than it spends.                    
 Number 225                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY acknowledged Representative James was correct and                 
 explained that the DMV collects approximately $34 million of state            
 revenue each year and the DMV's budget is $8.3 million a year.                
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated her concerns on attempting to figure              
 out what should be privatized and what ought not to be, however,              
 the other problem she noted of great concern by the public is  the            
 complaints of being mistreated not solely because they do not                 
 receive what they want, but also people complaining that they have            
 been treated rudely.  She noted that in Fairbanks there is a lot of           
 work being done to improve these situations.  She asked if                    
 computers were all networked into similar systems enabling them to            
 gain access to the same information.                                          
 MS. HENSLEY said, yes providing they pass the background                      
 investigation that is required in order to obtain access to the               
 national data bases.                                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked would it not be possible for a private             
 industry to have assigned personnel or a "bonding" for those                  
 personnel for less errors or greater mistakes.                                
 MS. HENSLEY stated HB 210 did not allow for any bonding at this               
 point.  She stated she did discuss this issue with the sponsor for            
 some sort of bonding mechanism that should be available so the                
 state does not lose interest off the revenues that are collected.             
 She stated, currently during 1994 when looking at just the DMV                
 field office functions performed, it cost the state approximately             
 $2.83 for every transaction.  She stated if one looks at all the              
 functions that the DMV does, it costs the state approximately $5              
 per transaction.  She felt that in this instance the state                    
 government has been frugal because there is a great number of                 
 people processed through their field offices and she noted the                
 lines at the DMV are longer than they would like them to be and no            
 one should have to stand in line longer than 5 to 20 minutes.  She            
 expressed concerns she had with the bill as it allows up to $7.50             
 per transaction for the contract agent to collect.  She made                  
 reference to another section in the bill which will address these             
 concerns.  She explained, if there is a contract agent that is                
 doing strictly renewal registrations in Anchorage for example, they           
 process over 100 transactions a day, renewal registrations are all            
 this agent is contracted to do.  She noted if they do 100                     
 transactions a day, their collectable fees would be $750 a day,               
 this equals $180,000 a year that the agent would be able to obtain            
 from this.  She stated her DMV field office personnel is funded at            
 approximately $37,000 a year.  She explained she was not eluding to           
 not privatizing certain functions and agreed that some should.  Ms.           
 Hensley remarked, the citizens of Alaska may be paying more than              
 what they have to pay for the DMV and noted if the DMV was funded             
 properly or even if alternative areas of funding were looked at,              
 the DMV would be able to reduce some of their costs and people                
 would be receiving the services they are paying for.                          
 Number 323                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Ms. Hensley if the DMV had an error                
 factor statewide as to what that error factor is by the office.               
 MS. HENSLEY said she did not have that information with her but               
 would make it available, and stated the error factor of the DMV was           
 not as high as 40 percent.  She explained, the DMV employees are              
 evaluated on their error factor as well as the amount of work                 
 produced in a day.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that from her past experiences in office           
 work, that to measure an error factor is easy to do when some one             
 else makes an error, but when we make it, there tends to be more              
 oversight and people can sometimes catch their own mistakes later.            
 Representative James inquired as to the possibility of this not               
 occurring if that person was contracted but would if they were a              
 state employee.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN asked how HB 210 would impact the               
 commercial driver licenses (CDL).                                             
 MS. HENSLEY explained HB 210 would allow the DMV to contract with             
 individuals in administering the CDLs.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked how HB 210 would impact the rural                
 areas of Alaska, where they do not have the offices available.  She           
 made reference to the following sections of HB 210; page 3, line              
 11, indicating "maintain at each approved third party location, for           
 at least one year."  She also made reference to page 3, line 24,              
 and lines 30 and 31, and lines 12 and 13 on page 4 as to the impact           
 on rural Alaska.                                                              
 MS. HENSLEY explained, all driver license documents are                       
 confidential by statute.  Ms. Hensley added, all documents must be            
 held in a secure environment if copies of the documents are to be             
 kept for one year and added, this concern needs to be addressed in            
 HB 210 .  She said if the committee would like, she would go                  
 through HB 210 and address concerns of the DMV and/or the                     
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS agreed to go through HB 210.                                   
 Number 369                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY referred to page 1 of the bill and explained there                
 should be an amendment to include snow machine registrations,                 
 authorized under Title 5, she added it should also include the                
 authorization of identification cards (IDs), authorized under Title           
 18 and any additional functions authorized under Title 28.  She               
 referred to the vehicle records and noted there is a $5 charge per            
 copy.  She added trip permits and temporary permits when purchasing           
 a new car all should be addressed in Section 1 of HB 210.                     
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if Representative Vezey would approach the               
 committee table in order to respond to any questions.  He asked if            
 the functions Ms. Hensley referred to were all standard functions             
 currently being done, and asked if it was the intent of                       
 Representative Vezey to have the DMV take over all functions that             
 are currently provided.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated it would not be to take over, but to              
 allow delegation of the functions.                                            
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there would be objection to the inclusion             
 of Ids and snow mobile registration.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he would not object to the inclusion              
 of Ids and snow mobile registration.                                          
 Number 403                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked if all terrain vehicles (ATV) would be           
 included under the snow machine registration.                                 
 MS. HENSLEY  stated ATVs are not subject to vehicle registration as           
 snow machines are with a registration sticker.                                
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he was not sure about the requirements            
 for registration of a snow machine.                                           
 MS. HENSLEY stated snow machines are required to be registered, but           
 hard to enforce.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to the requirements of                       
 registration on mobile homes.                                                 
 MS. HENSLEY explained two years ago, the section of law regarding             
 the registration of mobile homes was repealed and last year the               
 legislature decided it was something they needed and developed a              
 mandate that mobile homes "must be" registered as opposed to the              
 wording "may be" registered in the state of Alaska.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if they were mentioned in HB 210                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY indicated they were not included in this bill.           
 MS. HENSLEY stated mobile homes are covered under Title 28 under              
 the Registration and Titling provision and are included in the                
 certification of agent registrars.  She continued to explain, that            
 page 2, line 9, stated this section mandates that the DMV shall               
 utilize third party agents.  She added the DMV prefers the wording            
 "may utilize" rather than "shall utilize" (third party agents.)               
 She stated it may not be economically feasible for the DMV to                 
 contract with someone doing 10 transactions a month as opposed to             
 someone completing 40 transactions a month.                                   
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS suggested the possibility of the wording "shall                
 unless not economically feasible" with regards to Ms. Hensley's               
 MS. HENSLEY stated it was not the intent of the DMV to eliminate              
 contract agents.  She said she was not clear as to the wording                
 "individual" whether this meant company or contractors currently              
 working with the DMV.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the statutory definition of an                 
 "individual" indicates any entity that has legal standing.  He                
 stated he believed it was stated in Title (indisc).                           
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS stated this was discussed in a previous State                  
 Affairs Committee meeting.                                                    
 Number 445                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked for clarification on who was not                   
 considered an "individual."                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS suggested anyone you contracted with would be            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the intent is very broad and is not            
 limited to "nonprofits or for-profits," corporations, partnership,            
 individuals, natural persons.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN requested the statute for clarification on             
 the term "individual."                                                        
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS explained there will probably be a subcommittee                
 formed on HB 210 to go over topics such as that.                              
 Number 460                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY referred to the bottom of page 2, there needs to be an            
 additional paragraph regarding fingerprinting, criminal history and           
 any criteria for denial of certification based on certification of            
 the records.  She added this is in statute and the DMV will not be            
 adopting regulations for that, so there is a need for certain                 
 criteria a person must meet.  She stated the National Criminal                
 Investigation Computer (NCIC) and the FBI records for driving                 
 records, CDL (indisc.) are all interchanged within the DMV's                  
 system.  She noted a person cannot be convicted of a felony within            
 ten years or a misdemeanor within five.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated the language of HB 210 did not seem            
 to present an option for the "individual" to hire additional                  
 people.  She asked the sponsor if there was a provision for people            
 to be hired, and would they have to meet the same qualifications as           
 the "point person."                                                           
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS added this was a concern he had as well with the               
 recommendation made by the DMV.  He asked was it the intent of the            
 DMV to allow access to the computer system and was this in statute.           
 MS. HENSLEY stated it was the intent of the DMV to try and                    
 establish some sort of mechanism to where if the person is unable             
 to meet the criteria establish by the NCIC or the FBI, then they              
 will not have access to those records.  She stated vehicle                    
 registration files are different.  If a person only had access to             
 that particular function it would be different, but when a person             
 inquires about driver licensing, the driver record and criminal               
 record are interchanged.                                                      
 Number 486                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented it was not his intent to provide               
 access to the NCIC system or any other computer data base.  He                
 stated they were vendors similar to fishing and hunting licenses.             
 He explained they only need access to the necessary information to            
 carry out those particular functions.  He indicated they have not             
 spelled out all the details and have left some flexibility to the             
 department.  He stated these individuals may never need to access             
 any of the computer information and just transmit to a centralized            
 location for processing.  He stated by law, there is access to                
 limited information on the files.                                             
 MS. HENSLEY commented if the intent is to alleviate some of the               
 long lines at the DMV, "DMV has real time on-line for a person to             
 obtain their title and/or driver license on the spot."  She                   
 indicated to alleviate a central processing point, the DMV would be           
 counter-productive.  She stated it would require more personnel               
 sitting in an office, updating information and trying to get it               
 mailed out to people.  She stated concern regarding page 3, line 4,           
 with the term, "all applicable requirements of law."  She felt a              
 requirement should be added to require an agent, examiner or                  
 registrar to have a current Alaska business license, meet all                 
 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) building, zoning and fire               
 codes.  She referred to line 9, needing to be addressed which                 
 states driver license documents are all confidential.  She added,             
 currently the DMV commission agents do not keep copies of driver's            
 license applications, rather they are mailed in on a weekly basis.            
 She indicated one copy goes with their accounting documents and the           
 other hard copy goes directly to her office for microfilming and is           
 incorporated into the individual's driving record.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY emphasized the importance of understanding               
 early on there are three classes of individuals:  Agents,                     
 registrars and examiners.  He explained an agent has certain duties           
 excluding driver's license examiners.  He stated there are                    
 requirements for registrars and examiners and stated this bill was            
 long and complicated by virtue of the subject he noted, Section               
 28.12.030 only deals with third party agents.                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN asked why the driver's license documents               
 have to be kept confidential?                                                 
 Number 543                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY stated currently there is a requirement in the                    
 President's Crime Bill which passed last year requiring motor                 
 vehicle registration and information to be confidential.  She                 
 stated this was required by law until 1997.  She said driver's                
 license information has always been confidential.  She stated the             
 record contained a complete history of the individual's driving               
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES inquired as to the status of the bill                    
 regarding motor vehicles.                                                     
 MS. HENSLEY stated HB 110 is the bill Representative James was                
 referring to and is currently in front of the legislature to have             
 the state motor vehicle registration file in compliance with the              
 Federal Crime bill that passed the privatization of motor vehicle             
 records.  She referred to line 12, "transmit the documents to the             
 department by the 15th of each month."  She explained if there is             
 a contract with an agent that processes 200 driver's license                  
 applications a month, that is a tremendous amount to review.  She             
 proposed the deletion of "by the 15th of each month" and insert "as           
 determined by contract."  She suggested the possibility of having             
 a contract agent not having the volume of work to transmit every              
 week, but there may be some contract agents where you want the                
 documents on a daily basis.                                                   
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS commented on some areas receiving too much work at             
 one time within a month.                                                      
 MS. HENSLEY referred to line 13, after the word "subsection",                 
 insert, "and reports required by the department" and delete, "for             
 the previous months licensing and titling registration."  She                 
 proposed to delete, "24 hours" and insert "seven days" on line 17.            
 She explained if a person should fail their skills test, 24 hours             
 is not a long enough period of time for them to learn how to drive.           
 She explained, currently if a person fails the road skills test one           
 day, then they may retake the road skills test the following week.            
 She said it was a $15 fee to take the road test and this could add            
 up if every 24 hours they were attempting to take the road test.              
 She then referred to line 22, and proposed after the word "all"               
 insert "initial and advanced training courses."  Ms. Hensley                  
 referred to line 23 and proposed the deletion of "the department              
 may not require more than eight hours of training or other                    
 instruction in a calendar year."                                              
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked if there were some aspects of the training               
 that requires more time than others?                                          
 MS. HENSLEY said yes and explained, currently DMV belongs to the              
 American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators Certified               
 Driver Examiner program which requires 40 hours of training per               
 year and for a Commercial Driver License (CDL) examiner, it                   
 requires an additional 40 hours of training.  She mentioned there             
 are currently 25 other states belonging to this program.  She                 
 explained the examiner is nationally recognized for the training,             
 and stated this helped the examiner if they went to another state             
 that is a certified driver examiner state, they would have some               
 preference for hiring due to the fact they have been previously               
 trained and meet the necessary criteria.                                      
 Number 550                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if this pertained to examiners only, or            
 if agents and registrars were included as well, and was this                  
 examining the 40 hours of training?                                           
 MS. HENSLEY stated there is a need for training for registration              
 and is as equally important as driver examiner training.  She                 
 stated there are situations where there is a contract agent, such             
 as one of the police departments, that do everything.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained they set up three classes of                   
 individuals:  Agents, who are in charge of motor vehicle services             
 and examinations; registrars in charge of motor vehicle services              
 and do not meet all the requirements under this section being                 
 discussed now; and  examiners in charge of motor vehicle licensing            
 examination and issuance.  Agents accomplish both duties,                     
 registrars are responsible for only motor vehicle services and                
 examiners are responsible for driver license services.                        
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked under the Association of Motor Vehicles                  
 Administrators, does the DMV include all employees or are there               
 varying levels of employees that the DMV wants to have a certain              
 level of certification.  He indicated there seems to be two                   
 different types of structures; the existing structure and the                 
 proposed structure.                                                           
 MS. HENSLEY noted when looking at this from a DMV standpoint, all             
 of the DMV's employees would qualify as agents and would need all             
 the required training, not only for the vehicle registration                  
 titling but also for the driver license.  She explained they                  
 receive this training and complete it, and obtain their certified             
 driver examiner certificate after they have been employed a year.             
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS asked Representative Vezey if his intentions were to           
 make changes to the way things are done now.                                  
 Number 641                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated yes, but not necessarily to the extent            
 that the DMV would interpret.  He stated this was not necessarily             
 the final form.  He stated one of the first things they wanted to             
 accomplish is to set up a class of registrars, motor vehicle                  
 vendors, if you would,  who would not meet the same requirements              
 just mentioned.  He stated there was no way they would not have               
 access to classified information, for lack of a better word.   He             
 continued, these (indisc.) an automobile dealer...                            
 TAPE 95-9, SIDE  B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY continued (indisc.) what would be an                     
 appropriate number for training and stated we do not want to end up           
 in a situation where we require 120 hours of training, and an                 
 automobile dealer will not look favorably on providing the service            
 and can't afford the overhead.  He stated they are just looking for           
 a reasonable number.                                                          
 Number 019                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if they have to go out of state for this           
 training and is it required annually.                                         
 MS. HENSLEY stated it was an annual 40 hours of training.  Ms.                
 Hensley stated she had a meeting with Representative Vezey prior to           
 this meeting and discussed the fact that public safety employees              
 are considered class one employees, and on certain holidays during            
 the year public safety employees have to work when everyone else              
 has off.  She stated that the DMV utilizes those holidays for                 
 training days.  She added there is a portion of those 40 hours that           
 is strictly book training.  She indicated some of the training is             
 accomplished through correspondence means and reiterated 40 hours             
 of training was required.                                                     
 Number 037                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN DAVIS suggested due to the extent of work required on HB
 210, it would be more productive to set up a subcommittee with                
 himself, members of the committee, Representative Vezey and the               
 DMV.  Chairman Davis stated he wanted to designate Representative             
 Brice in order to have a minority member on the Committee.                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects