When attendees at the 2004 Convention in St. Louis were asked for an opinion, the most common response was "Great!" That response is also being used to rate this year's convention in Scottsdale but many have chosen to use another adjective-"Fantastic!" And this, indeed, would be an apt description. The food was excellent and plentiful; the seminar speakers were first rate; and the annual meeting went off-well, a bit more heated than usual, but that could have been influenced a wee bit by the 112-degree temperature outside.
Those of you who read The Docket Sheet from cover to cover-and I'm sure you are legion-were given advance warning that some very important topics would take center stage at the annual meeting. The first dealt with seven pages of proposed amendments to the NAPPS bylaws from four members. When the debate had ended and the votes registered, all proposed amendments were either withdrawn or defeated except for an amendment to Article V-that would increase the number of board members and establish term limits for all officers and directors-which was tabled.
The members did, however, unanimously adopt the Standards and Best Practices for service of process and process server education put forth by John Perez, Chair of the Education Committee. Read the full text in this issue following Tony Klein's Standards and Best Practices Committee report.
E-Service was the dominant issue at this convention and it clearly had an effect on the elections. Two new members were elected to the board, but to call one of them-Andy Estin-a new member is a bit of a stretch. Mr. Estin was one of the organizers of NAPPS and our founding president. Over the years he's served on the Board in every capacity except Secretary, if memory serves me correctly. The other new addition to
the Board is Jeff Bannister of South Carolina. Although he's been a member for only five years, he seems pumped for the eService battle.
There was a crowded field of nominees aspiring for a slot on the board and the members had a variety of options from which to choose a candidate.
Election results-2005-2006 Board of Directors:
President: John Perez, New Jersey
1st V-Pres: Jeff H. Karotkin, California
2nd V-Pres: Andrew R. Estin, California
Secretary: Linda Perlmutter, Connecticut
Treasurer: Ronald R. Ezell, Arizona
Director: Frederic A. Blum, Pennsylvania
Director: Thomas MacDonald, Arizona
Director: J.B. Bannister, South Carolina
Immed Past Pres: MaryLee Rustand, Wash.
The first meeting of the new board will take place Saturday, August 6. at the Sixth Avenue Inn, 2000 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Wash. Get further details on the NAPPS website or from the NAPPS office.
The eFiling, eService debate was so absorbing to the attendees that additional meetings to discuss the issue were held outside the conference hall while the scheduled seminar events were taking place.
Those who stayed for the seminar were treated to a host of excellent speakers: Jimmie Mesis, editor of PI Magazine, who gave an engaging, informative talk on marketing; Kitty Hailey, a New Jersey private investigator and author of two books-Code of Professional Conduct and The Private Investigator, who has an extraordinary grasp of professional ethics and communication skills; Dr. Robert A. Palmer Ph.D, a true expert on Arizona law involving a variety of subjects including service of process; and Robert Hild, a managing partner in a private equity firm that, among other
activities, specializes in finding, evaluating and consummating transactions involving process service companies
Annual Rebate to Chartered State Associations
In 2002 NAPPS began rebating to Chartered State Associations $10 for each NAPPS member in their state.. This is our fourth year of sending out rebate checks.. This year's checks totaled $7,880, the highest payout so far. Florida, last year's leader, dropped 27 members and fell to third place behind California and New York.
This year's rebate brings the total amount NAPPS has paid out to $30,430.
State Association
2005
2004
California
(CAPPS)
$1,780
$1,830
New York
(NYSPPSA)
$1,740
$1,700
Florida
(FAPPS)
$1,660
$1,930
Texas
(TPSA)
$1,240
$1,090
Oregon
(OAPS)
$350
$370
Washington
(WSPSA)
$360
$360
Arizona
(APSA)
$350
$350
New Jersey
(NJPPSA)
$400
$350
Totals…………………………
$7,880
$7.810
Special Legislation Fund
This fund was created in 2001 so that members could make voluntary contributions to assist state associa-tions in promoting or fighting legislation that would have a major impact on the process serving industry.
My report to members at the annual meeting showed a balance of $32,678.01 in the account. This balance is now reduced by $4,594.53, which is the amount the Board granted to Florida ($1,094.53) and Tennessee ($3,500) for reimbursement of expenses incurred in
promoting their legislative bills. Current balance in the account is $28,083.
To date NAPPS has paid a total of $31,435 to assist states in their legislative activities. Money is distributed from this fund upon written request only. The Board's adopted procedure for requesting funds may be obtained by contacting the NAPPS office.
E-Service Legislation in the States
In addition to the legislation passed last year in South Carolina, which we reported on extensively in the March-April issue of The Docket Sheet, there has been activity in the following states that has captured our attention.
Nebraska (LB 11)
On 3/9/05 the Governor approved a bill which authorizes the use of electronic postmarks in the exchange of information between the state and any person the state regulates or does business with. However, use of the electronic postmark shall be at the option of the parties to the communication.
A crucial, but favorable section in the Act reads:
"This action shall not be construed to require a person or state agency to use or permit the use of an electronic postmark, to authorize the use of an email address for service of process of legal documents upon a party to a lawsuit…."
West Virginia (SB 639)
On 5/4/05 the Governor signed legislation providing for the use of an electronic postmark, but the last section in the Act states:
"Nothing contained in this article may be construed to authorize the use of electronic signatures, electronic postmarks, or both, to effect service of a summons and complaint."
Maryland (HB 487)
On 5/10/05 the Governor approved a bill defining certain terms and generally relating to electronic postmarks and the Maryland Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The last section of the Act reads:
"This Section does not authorize the use of an electronic postmark or electronic postmark certificate for the service of a summons, complaint, or other papers for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction over a defendant in a lawsuit."
North Carolina ((HB 1434)
This bill, introduced on 4/20/05, has passed the House and is now in the Senate Judiciary I Committee. It authorizes the use of the USPS electronic postmark in proving service of process under Rule 4 of the NC rules of civil procedure.
