The following bills have recently been added to the OII Bill Watch list. Please let
us know if you have comments or concerns regarding these bills. For a complete
list of bills on the OII Watch List go to www.ohioinsurance.org.
House Bills
HB 28- JUDICIAL LIABILITY (Stautberg, Letson) To eliminate personal liability
for probate and juvenile judges for the default, malfeasance, or nonfeasance of
any appointee or employee.
Click here to view HB 28 as introduced
HB 35-DRIVER EDUCATION (Sears) To require the classroom and behind-thewheel instruction that is given to minors in driver education courses to include
instruction on the proper driving techniques that noncommercial motor vehicle
operators should utilize in order to share the roadway with large commercial
motor vehicles safely.
Click here to view HB 35 as introduced
Hearings of Interest HB 4- Vehicle Insurance Verification
Representative Matt Huffman (R-Lima) gave sponsor testimony in House
Insurance Committee on HB 4. The legislation would eliminate the financial
responsibility random verification program of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles
(BMV).
Huffman questioned the efficiency of the BMV program, which currently sends
out about 5,400 letters each week to randomly selected Ohio drivers requiring
them to send in proof of insurance. The sponsor went onto say that rate of
uninsured drivers has not changed substantially since the program started. “I
don’t believe this is having any effect in getting more people to go out and buy
insurance.”
Huffman said that the program is primarily a burden to law-abiding citizens and it
can’t solve the problem of the “chronically uninsured.”
Chairman Jay Hottinger (R-Newark) expressed concerns of eliminating the
program entirely and not having a program in place to verify auto insurance. This
seemed to be the sentiment of most members during questioning of the sponsor.
Hottinger acknowledged that he was annoyed when he received the BMV
insurance verification letter, but realized he would be much more annoyed if he
was involved in an accident with an uninsured driver. Hottinger informed the
committee that roughly 10% of these letters result in driver licenses being
suspended, which equals about 500 licenses per week.
Huffman said that the BMV already has other measures in place that check
drivers' insurance status. For example, applicants to renew licenses or plates
must sign a document stating they are insured and coverage information is
collected when Ohioans annually register their vehicles.
Rep. Huffman said he didn't believe the rate of uninsured drivers would increase
if the program were abolished.
Rep. Bob Hackett (R-London) commented that possible future legislation to
increase minimum liability requirements for drivers insurance could result in
increased premiums and a corresponding spike in uninsured drivers.
Rep. Tracey Maxwell-Herd (D-Columbus) asked if the $125 reinstatement fees
offset the cost of the program, which is approximately $1.1 million per biennium
to administer. The sponsor did not know the specifics, but said he would
research and share with the committee.
The OII will continue to oppose this legislation.
Click here to view HB 4 as introduced.
HB 2- Performance Budgeting
The House State Government and Elections Committee held a first hearing this
week on HB 2, legislation sponsored by Rep. Todd Snitchler (R-Uniontown) and
Rep. Peter Stautberg (R-Cincinnati), which would require performance budgeting
by most state agencies and require performance audits of those agencies.
Rep. Snitchler said if HB 2 is enacted, the Auditor of State would be required to
conduct performance audits of four specific state agencies every two years and
all others on a rotating basis.
The Ohio Departments of Education (ODE) and Job and Family Services
(ODJFS) will be among those required to be analyzed every two years and would
be the first to undergo the process, the bill sponsors said. They added that the
director of the Office of Budget and Management would determine the two other
priority agencies.
Rep. Matt Lundy (D-Elyria) asked how the idea of four targeted agencies came
up, and Rep. Snitchler said concerns surrounding the cost and manpower to
conduct more than four audits at such frequency created that limit.
State Auditor Dave Yost said in proponent testimony that ODE and ODJFS were
targeted because of their size and share of the state budget.
The new legislation includes a few changes from last session's version (HB 65): it
stipulates that the auditor may choose to grade specific offices or subdivisions
within the individual agencies and can use discretion in choosing which agencies
to audit. The current bill also states that departments must begin implementing
changes within three months of the report's release.
Committee members were curious about the cost of such an initiative, and
Chairman Bob Mecklenborg (R-Green Township) said the fiscal note for the bill
had yet to be completed by the Legislative Service Commission.
Rep. Snitchler pointed to Washington, which is one of at least eight states that
has implemented a similar audit requirement. He said that there $14 million spent
by the state to audit agencies resulted in at least $3 billion in savings over a
number of years.
"If we can get 10 million dollars to start that would be terrific," Rep. Snitchler said,
but acknowledged the state might not be able to divert that much money in the
next budget.
Auditor Yost had a smaller funding concept in mind. He asked lawmakers to
consider establishing what he called the Leverage for Efficiency, Accountability
and Performance Fund, or LEAP fund, that would require $5 million to start.
The auditor's proposal, which is not part of the bill, would make a revolving loan
fund that would be replenished as audits reaped savings. Any money saved by
an agency as the result of an audit would be used to pay back the cost of the
audit into that fund.
Auditor Yost said the legislature would be responsible for determining the source
of the initial $5 million. He said his conversations with the chairman of the
Finance Committee indicated that a one-time money source, such as the selling
of state assets, could provide the necessary funding. Additionally, sales tax
revenue is slightly better than anticipated, he said.
Chairman Mecklenborg said he expects HB 2 to move quickly through
committee.
We will continue to follow this legislation.
Click here to view HB 2 as introduced
Supreme Court of Ohio-Ohio Traffic Rules Amendments
The Supreme Court of Ohio will accept public comments on proposed
amendments to Ohio Traffic Rules 11, 13, and 14 until February 8, 2011. The
proposed amendments are attached. Please let us know if you have any
questions, comments or concerns with the amendments.
Click here to view Ohio Traffic Rules
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO OHIO TRAFFIC RULES Comments Requested: The Supreme Court of Ohio will accept public comments until February 8, 2011 on the following proposed amendments to the Ohio Traffic Rules. Comments on the proposed amendments should be submitted in writing to: Jo Ellen Cline, Government Relations Counsel, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, 7th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215‐3431, or j.cline@sc.ohio.gov not later than February 8, 2011. Please include your full name and mailing address in any comments submitted by e‐mail. Key to Proposed Amendment: 1. Original language of the rule appears as regular typescript. 2. Language to be deleted appears thus. 3. Language to be added appears thus. Proposed Amendments to the Ohio Traffic Rules *** RULE 11. Pleadings and Motions before Plea and Trial: Defenses and Objections *** (C) Motion date. Pre‐plea motions shall be made before or at arraignment. All pretrial motions, except as provided in Criminal Rule 16(F) 16(M), shall be made within thirty‐five days after arraignment or seven days before trial, whichever is earlier. The court, in the interest of justice, may extend the time for making pre‐plea or pretrial motions. *** RULE 13. Traffic Violations Bureau *** (B) Authority of violations bureau. All traffic offenses except those listed in this division (B)(1) to (9) of this rule may be disposed of by a traffic violations bureau. The following traffic offenses shall not be processed by a traffic violations bureau: (1) Indictable offenses; (2) Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse; (3) Leaving the scene of an accident; (4) Driving while under suspension or revocation of a driver's or commercial driver’s license when jail is a possible penalty; (5) Driving without being licensed to drive, except where the driver's or commercial driver's license had been expired for six months or less when jail is a possible penalty; (6) A third moving traffic offense within a twelve‐month period when jail is a possible penalty; (7) Failure to stop and remain standing upon meeting or overtaking a school bus stopped on the highway for the purpose of receiving or discharging a school child; (8) Willfully eluding or fleeing a police officer; (9) Drag racing. *** RULE 14. Magistrates (A) A court may appoint one or more magistrates for the purpose of receiving pleas, determining guilt or innocence, receiving statements in explanation and in mitigation of sentence, and recommending penalty to be imposed. A magistrate shall be an attorney admitted to practice in Ohio have been engaged in the practice of law for at least four years and be in good standing with the Supreme Court of Ohio at the time of appointment. A magistrate shall be provided with court room accommodations resembling as nearly as possible traffic court rooms.