IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

You can now browse through past ballot comments using the tools below.

1st Period Comments on FTPBP #1 - 2020

Jurisdiction Position Comments

Undecided Generally support. 

A failure or refusal of an eligible member to cast a vote should not be considered a "no" vote

Undecided Agree with sanctioned jurisdictions but uncertain of the value and whether appropriate to include: no commissioner named, or absent from ABM without a named voting delegate (i.e., the jurisdiction is still active member’s of IFTA).  Is there anything which indicates these proposed changes would have changed the outcome of any past vote?

Undecided We understand the need for this ballot and jurisdiction eligibility appears to be tied to three factors:
  1. Active Status
  2. Named IFTA Commissioner
  3. Voting member or proxy at the ABM.
CA agrees with the first two factors as you should not be part of the denominator if your Jurisdiction has lost voting rights or has no commissioner named to cast a vote in the time frame a vote is called.  The question is if a jurisdiction doesn't have a voting member or proxy at the ABM are, they now considered noneligible and not part of the denominator on the ballots for that year?  It seems the way the ballot is currently written it is a factor to determine the jurisdictional denominator and I do not see where it is limited to only the voting at the ABM.  It is for this reason CA is undecided.



Support It is important to recognize the following:
R1650 ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENTS .100.  Votes on amendments or interpretations must be cast by the commissioner or a delegate named in writing by the commissioner.

This ballot proposes to slide the “denominator” if a commissioner/proxy in not recognized by IFTA, Inc., or a jurisdiction is not otherwise eligible to vote (must be in good standing).

Support Indiana supports a ballot process that generates results based on the participation of member jurisdictions in good standing.  We would prefer a change to 75% of the votes cast but the community has spoken on that concept.  With that in mind we see this ballot as an improvment and support it.  



Maine has the same concerns that Quebec and other jurisdictions have stated and believes the intent of this ballot would be better served by defining the denominator as those jurisdictions that have not lost their voting privileges.

Undecided Manitoba generally supports the intent of this ballot but needs clarification on the issues identified by other jurisdictions.

Undecided Maryland is undecided, and agrees with comments posted by Nevada

Undecided Minnesota is undecided at this time based on the comments raised by Alabama and Nevada on the issue that a failure to vote is an automatic no vote and that is included in the denominator.  Also agree that the comments from Quebec, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and North Carolina need to be clarified in the proposal to eliminate the potential for issues later on.



Undecided Nebraska shares the concern expressed by California.  We would need to be assured that  even though a member didn't have a proxy at the ABM that wouldn't prevent them from voting on ballots for the entire year.  
Additionally, we also don't disagree with comments from others regarding the issue of not voting equaling a no vote, but perhaps that could be addressed in a separate ballot.  

Undecided While NV agrees the percentage of votes needed should not include a member jurisdiction who's voting rights have been suspended or is otherwise not in good standing, NV also believes the percentage should not include jurisdictions who fail to vote.  Automatically casting a "no" vote for a jurisdiction who for whatever reason fails to exercise their right to cast a vote, should be considered an "abstainment" and not counted in the denominator.





Undecided Attached are some comments, questions and recommended edits to the proposed ballot.



Undecided Agree with PEI's comments and others as well.

Support ON fully supports the intent of the ballot however, believe there may be value in modifying by including the reference under R200 (DEFINITIONS) for greater clarity. This would also allow a defined “eligible member jurisdiction” to be cited for purposes other than R1600 amendments.
It is questionable whether a Commissioner must be officially recognized by IFTA, Inc. as this implies a form of approval is required. It is the 58 provincial/state jurisdictions that are express parties to the Agreement, not the Commissioners. By virtue of R218, a Commissioner is identified by the respective jurisdictions to be responsible for local administration of the IFTA and by extension, speak on behalf of that government.

We therefore propose the following as a definition

An eligible member jurisdiction means the jurisdiction has:
  • Recognized voting privileges and is in compliance with the terms of the Agreement,
  • Appointed a Commissioner and identified the Commissioner to IFTA, Inc., and
  • Named an alternate delegate by proxy if unable to participate in a vote and identified the delegate to IFTA, Inc.

Undecided "eligible member" should be included in the definition section, somewhere around R220 rather than trying to define it within R1600.
There is no mechanism for IFTA Inc to officially recognize a commissioner or delegate, borrowing the language in R1650.100 this could be Commissioner identified by the jurisdiction.  Even better would be Commissioner, or delegate, identified by the jurisdiction.  This second option covers the fact delegates are only a consideration for votes at the ABM.
R1545 does not need to change if the definition includes "jurisdictions with active member status"
Although R1545.300 requires compliance with the Agreement as a criteria for Active Membership; therefore, a jurisdiction found out of compliance by the DRC is not Active.  It may be beneficial to include in the definition of Eligible Member language to the effect of "not currently found to be out of compliance by the Dispute Resolution Committee"

• Quebec is seeking clarification on the meaning of the words "officially recognized by IFTA, Inc. ", Which is added in article 1600 in connection with the presence of a commissioner or a voting delegate. It is our understanding that the IFTA  Agreement does not provide for the recognition of the Commissioner or the Delegate. Is there such a procedure or would it rather be a discretionary power that these modifications would grant to IFTA Inc.?
• Furthermore, the definition of "Eligible member jurisdiction" should be found in a general section of the Agreement and not in article R1600. Finally, article R1545.300 must be reviewed in the light of this new definition, possibly by deleting the last paragraph of R1545.300 and adding to the definition of "Eligible member jurisdiction" that it must be a jurisdiction “retaining active status as defined in R1545.300. "
For these reasons Quebec is undecided.


Undecided 6/4/2020
Robert Pitcher, Consultant ATA

ATA takes no position; however, if the details of the ballot aren’t clarified – see the other comments here – there could be controversy over close votes if the proposal is adopted.


Support: 12
Oppose: 1
Undecided: 16