PNAI IVIPS Efforts | Legislative Measures of Interest | Forums

Testing the Forum;  RCW 46.12.380 was revised and changed to RCW;4612.635 section (4) is what we are concerned about.

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 42.56 RCW, the name or address of an individual vehicle owner shall not be released by the department, county auditor, or agency or firm authorized by the department except under the following circumstances:

     (a) The requesting party is a business entity that requests the information for use in the course of business;

     (b) The request is a written request that is signed by the person requesting disclosure that contains the full legal name and address of the requesting party, that specifies the purpose for which the information will be used; and

     (c) The requesting party enters into a disclosure agreement with the department in which the party promises that the party will use the information only for the purpose stated in the request for the information; and that the party does not intend to use, or facilitate the use of, the information for the purpose of making any unsolicited business contact with a person named in the disclosed information. The term "unsolicited business contact" means a contact that is intended to result in, or promote, the sale of any goods or services to a person named in the disclosed information. The term does not apply to situations where the requesting party and such person have been involved in a business transaction prior to the date of the disclosure request and where the request is made in connection with the transaction.

     (2) Where both a mailing address and residence address are recorded on the vehicle record and are different, only the mailing address will be disclosed. Both addresses will be disclosed in response to requests for disclosure from courts, law enforcement agencies, or government entities with enforcement, investigative, or taxing authority and only for use in the normal course of conducting their business.

     (3) The disclosing entity shall retain the request for disclosure for three years.

     (4) Whenever the disclosing entity grants a request for information under this section by an attorney or private investigator, the disclosing entity shall provide notice to the vehicle owner, to whom the information applies, that the request has been granted. The notice also shall contain the name and address of the requesting party.

     (5) Any person who is furnished vehicle owner information under this section shall be responsible for assuring that the information furnished is not used for a purpose contrary to the agreement between the person and the department.

     (6) This section shall not apply to requests for information by governmental entities or requests that may be granted under any other provision of this title expressly authorizing the disclosure of the names or addresses of vehicle owners.

     (7) This section shall not apply to title history information under RCW 19.118.170.

[2005 c 340 § 2; 2005 c 274 § 304; 1995 c 254 § 10; 1990 c 232 § 2; 1987 c 299 § 1; 1984 c 241 § 2. Formerly RCW 46.12.380.]

I met with Grant Nelson on Wednesday  Dec 14th and spent the day with him in Olympia, We had a scheduled meeting with Senator Carrell and several other people. Senator Carrell is our prime sponsor for introducing our Bill. We were successfull in obtaining support and several signatures from Senators in the Senate.

A represanative from DOL was at our meeting and it sounds like we have the support from DOL with regards the the changes in notification. Turns out the the efforts in 2009/2010 were not supported by DOL because the language was changed to a 30 day delay of notification. I discovered that this would cost DOL a significant amount of money because of programing costs in their automated system just to do a delay in notification.

The way things are written with our proposed Bill, we are proceeding with the complete deletion of the notification, to include deleting the notification for Attorneys.

So the Bar Association is welcome to support our efforts as well so that we may be successfull in changing this law that is no longer needed and provides no aditional public protection by having it in effect.

I will post a further detailed update about my day in Olympia soon and to keep you informed of our progress so keep checking here for updates.

January 10, 2012

Ok, folks we now have new bill numbers: SB 6075, and HB 2342  they will be introduced on the calendar in the morning and you can track their progress. I have highlighted the section in red that reflect the requested changes.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/

We have signatures form the following in support of the bill:

Representatives Kirby, Rodne, Goodman, Shea, Kelley, Blake, Takko, Overstreet

Carrell, Harper

H-3159.1 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 2342
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 62nd Legislature 2012 Regular Session
By Representatives Kirby, Rodne, Goodman, Shea, Kelley, Blake, Takko,
and Overstreet
1 AN ACT Relating to the disclosure of vehicle owner information; and
2 reenacting and amending RCW 46.12.635.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 46.12.635 and 2005 c 340 s 2 and 2005 c 274 s 304 are
5 each reenacted and amended to read as follows:
6 (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 42.56 RCW, the name
7 or address of an individual vehicle owner shall not be released by the
8 department, county auditor, or agency or firm authorized by the
9 department except under the following circumstances:
10 (a) The requesting party is a business entity that requests the
11 information for use in the course of business;
12 (b) The request is a written request that is signed by the person
13 requesting disclosure that contains the full legal name and address of
14 the requesting party, that specifies the purpose for which the
15 information will be used; and
16 (c) The requesting party enters into a disclosure agreement with
17 the department in which the party promises that the party will use the
18 information only for the purpose stated in the request for the
19 information; and that the party does not intend to use, or facilitate
p. 1 HB 2342
1 the use of, the information for the purpose of making any unsolicited
2 business contact with a person named in the disclosed information. The
3 term "unsolicited business contact" means a contact that is intended to
4 result in, or promote, the sale of any goods or services to a person
5 named in the disclosed information. The term does not apply to
6 situations where the requesting party and such person have been
7 involved in a business transaction prior to the date of the disclosure
8 request and where the request is made in connection with the
9 transaction.
10 (2) Where both a mailing address and residence address are recorded
11 on the vehicle record and are different, only the mailing address will
12 be disclosed. Both addresses will be disclosed in response to requests
13 for disclosure from courts, law enforcement agencies, or government
14 entities with enforcement, investigative, or taxing authority and only
15 for use in the normal course of conducting their business.
16 (3) The disclosing entity shall retain the request for disclosure
17 for three years.
18 (4) ((Whenever the disclosing entity grants a request for
19 information under this section by an attorney or private investigator,
20 the disclosing entity shall provide notice to the vehicle owner, to
21 whom the information applies, that the request has been granted. The
22 notice also shall contain the name and address of the requesting party.
23 (5))) Any person who is furnished vehicle owner information under
24 this section shall be responsible for assuring that the information
25 furnished is not used for a purpose contrary to the agreement between
26 the person and the department.
27 (((6))) (5) This section shall not apply to requests for
28 information by governmental entities or requests that may be granted
29 under any other provision of this title expressly authorizing the
30 disclosure of the names or addresses of vehicle owners.
31 (((7))) (6) This section shall not apply to title history
32 information under RCW 19.118.170.
— END —
HB 2342 p. 2

January 25,

A couple of long days in Olympia, but we had our hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee with Chair Mary Margaret Haugen. The link to the recorded hearing in posted in the forums if you want to review it.

At this point please you do not need to e-mail the committee members or Senator Carrel as we are all in further discussion about our bill issues. We are confidant that we know the concerns addressing the removal of notification and are currently talking about some slight ammended language in the bill.

We are talking about removing the PI and Attorney's name and address information from the notification, still allowing WDOL to send out notifications just without giving the name and address of the person who requested the information.

I think that this will satisfy all parties involved and the only way that a R/o would find this information would be for them to request it under the public disclosure request to WDOL and at that point they would be doing so in writing and verifying their infomation to WDOL as well which we could also have access to if needed.

I will keep posting updates here as I get them and we move along.

Update 04/12/2012

At the end of the special session in Olympia I have to report that our bill was not successful in passing through the House. Speaker Frank Chopp apparently has an issue with the bill but we do not know what it is. He is the Chairman of the House Rules Committee which is where our bill died.  So we will have to have conversations with him to see if we can educate our position to him and discover what the issues are. The bill did not make it out of the House Rules Committee for a full vote in the House. We were up against more important issues that were budget related this year which made things more difficult.

As you know we were very successful in our efforts in the Senate and got way farther that ever before on this issue. I believe we have made a statement and will be successful in the next session. Please continue to support the efforts by donating when you can for the next go around. The IVIPs Legislation donation link will still be on the web and all proceeds received from that or sent in to PNAI will continue to go 100% towards the legislative and lobby effort.

I do plan on continuing my efforts to see that this gets done for all of us.

We did make it through the full Senate this year with the bill which is good. We made a lot of contacts and now everyone knows who PNAI is. We do have a sponsor to re-introduce our bill in the next session. This year is an election year so things can and will most likely change a bit for the next go around.

In the mean time we are planning on having meetings with Representatives and Senators throughout the year talking about this IVIPs Disclosure issue.  We also have gained the support from DOL so there are a few different strategies that we can look at in the next session.

We also need to get more support from the Attorney and Bar Associations as this also effects their access to information with the IVIPs accounts.

With a combined continued effort I feel that we can eventually be successful in educating the opposition to the changes we are proposing.

Grant Nelson has agreed to come and be a guest speaker at our next general meeting in April. I will be scheduling a open house type of meeting for all PIs to attend and to meet Grant, ask questions and have him update you on our efforts this year and to give you information on the entire process and what we can expect for the next session.

I would encourage all to attend who have been or are interested in this process and this particular issue and for thoes who are non members you can join PNAI and help support the efforts as we continue into the next session.

Typically we are in a good position, one usually does not get a bill passed in the first efforts. It usually takes a second time or more to get things done but not always. Even though this issue has been heard before we have gotten much much more exposure with the help from Grant to educate people on the hill about our issue.

We are now known as an association for our efforts in Olympia and can continue each year with our lobby efforts to help improve our profession.

I look forward each year to continue taking on challenges that effect our industry.

Thank you to all of you who donated funds this year to help in the efforts. I wish that I could report that we were successful in the first try but even though we did not get our bill passed this year we were successful in the process.

Hope to see you all at our next meeting.