Less than two weeks after SBTC Executive Director James Lamb sent the UCR Board of Directors an email on February 1st stating...
"The SBTC hereby directs the UCR Plan, CVSA and the participating states to cease and desist from attempting to enforce 2020 UCR on May 1st, which is clearly now less than 90 days from the eventual date the UCR program opens, and be guided accordingly. We recommend the UCR Board reset the recommended enforcement date once the program actually opens and that CVSA and the states respect this revised date before commencing enforcement..."
UCR Recommends Enforcement Start on June 1, 2020
State enforcement of the UCR registration requirements commonly begins January 1. But since the opening of the 2020 registration period was delayed several months due to a delay in the approval of fees, UCR is requesting states delay enforcement until June 1, 2020.
an interstate compact executed by 41 states in 2007, calls for carriers to have a 90-day compliance period. Usually, that period is October 1 to December 31 of each year. However, the program opened late this year on February 13th-- as it has the two previous years. SBTC maintained that a UCR program launch after February 1st would not afford carriers a full 90 day compliance period if the May 1st recommended enforcement date was not moved. It appears the Board as now taken such action, but not in accordance with the process required by the
(a Federal open meetings law).
In an email to the Board last Friday entitled
"New Apparent Violation of
by UCR Plan,"
"...it appears the Board held an unnoticed, secret Board meeting closed to the public and decided to change the last Board approved enforcement date of May 1st to June 1st....
While we appreciate the extension, it appears the Board still needs to be under an injunction to compel it to follow the law and due process."
Lamb contends the Board should have waited until a lawfully noticed March Board meeting to formally change the date to undo the previous action of setting May 1st as the recommended enforcement date, which the Board took at its January Board meeting.
SBTC sued the UCR Board in 2017 alleging violation of the
won the case in February 2019.
The Court issued a one year injunction last year that expired earlier this month. A motion to extend the injunction from one to five years was made in May of 2019 by SBTC and remains pending before the court.
"It appears the Board just doesn't get how this is supposed to work,"
Lamb said today.
"If it takes Board action to set the May 1st date in January and they thereafter seek to reset it, they have to wait until the next duly-noticed Board meeting to do so. They can't hold secret board meetings, at which, they make decisions like this without public notice and opportunity for input. You would think after the case we just won last year, they would now make a good faith effort to comply with their Sunshine Act obligations under the law. It now appears a mere week after the injunction expired, the Board went and violated the
yet again. This is the very reason the injunction needs to be extended and the Board needs to continue to be subject to a motion for contempt of court,"