IFTA Ballot Proposals Comments

IFTA Ballot Comments

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


1st Period Comments on FTPBP #3 - 2021

Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALABAMA
Support failure to vote should be counted as an abstension and not a  "no" vote

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Support

CALIFORNIA
Support Support stream lining the process for the ballot process

IDAHO
Support

INDIANA
Support Indiana, in general, supports IFTA Ballot #3-2021; however, some language modification is requested.
  • We recommend that days for the comment period, voting period, drafts, etc., listed throughout this proposed ballot for Agreement modifications should indicate business or calendar days. (IRP has used calendars; proposed amened sections - R1610; R1620; R1625; or where else relevant)
R1605. Although the term “minor edits” is used to provide for the Board of Trustees to make edits to Agreement, Procedures Manual and/or Audit Manual the determination of what may be a minor edit, could be a material edit (such as format and minor grammatical efforts). The provision should be restated as to what are the only or limited changed items that can be made by the repository. Edits should be limited only for typos, title, font, format, spelling errors, incorrect reference sections. The word “etc.” should be removed due to broadness and undefined items. Any change in content outside of what is specifically set forth/approved to be changed would require membership approval. Otherwise, the term “minor edits” needs to be better defined

Industry Advisory Committee
The IFTA IAC has some concerns with this ballot. The current language explains what is considered a minor edits, but equally important, the ballot should do a better job at describing a substantial edit. Grammatical corrections could have unintended consequences in affecting the intent of the language of the Articles of Agreement. It should also be noted that this ballot does not fix the true issue with the ballot process and that is 100% participation in voting. There should be ramifications for a Jurisdiction not voting; full participation in voting is essential in getting thing done.

KANSAS
Support

KENTUCKY
Support

MAINE
Oppose Maine agrees with PEI’s comments and makes the following suggestions.  The first comment period should stay at 45 days.  The longer comment period will allow jurisdictions to seek attorney input.  No votes on amendments should be taken during the open meeting.  The final ballot should be submitted to the repository x days after the close of the open meeting for vote regardless if a 2nd comment period is held.  The vote on all ballots should start at the same time so the effective dates would be the same.  This would streamline the updates to the guiding documents

MANITOBA
Support

MARYLAND
Undecided Although Maryland appreciates the proposed streamlining to a single ballot process, we have concerns relative to the reduced number of days for additional actions.

MICHIGAN
Support

MINNESOTA
Support

MISSOURI
Support

NEBRASKA
Oppose As written, Nebraska cannot support this ballot. 

We do, however,  support the idea of simplfying the ballot process by the elimination of the short track/ full track system with a  ballot process and shortening the time period for comments
Reading through the ballot we had lots of questions - 
We understand the appeal of the Submission of Preliminary Edits for Board Review concept, but is still subjective and allows the repository to decide what is minor and what is not.  We haven't yet run this by our legal team, but I cannot imagine them accepting that language.
It is not clear how the decision is made to vote on a ballot at the annual meeting and when not to?  Who makes that decision?  In general we are not in favor of ballots being voted on for passage at the annual meeting. 
Our suggestion is to propose a simpler ballot that deals with the main two issues, elimination of the short track/full track process and shortening some of the time frames.  Once that is implemented, then work on other changes if necessary. 

NEVADA
Undecided

NEW BRUNSWICK
Support New Brunswick supports this ballot; however, we would recommend that section R1605 - 100 be separated into two sections, “Board of trustee” and “The membership”.

NEWFOUNDLAND
Support

NORTH CAROLINA
Undecided North Carolina has concerns regarding the potential for unintended consequences regarding "preliminary edits" to the Article of Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual. These edits can include typos, title, font, format, minor grammatical edits, incorrect reference sections.

Edits to address typographical errors, changes to grammar, and changing section references, by their nature, have a high potential to change the meaning of what is written. In many instances "preliminary edits" would not be worth seeking or otherwise be desirable unless it made a requirement or process more clear. Implicit in a change for clarity is that a specific interpretation of a text is now more likely than another interpretation. Therefore, by design, these edits are vehicles to change the content of the document.

Further, making any changes to the Article of Agreement, Procedures Manual, or Audit Manual should be taken with great care and provide for sufficient review by all Jurisdictions. Although not completely alleviating all of North Carolina's concerns, we encourage the Agreement Procedures Committee to review the attached document, which provides sample language. The sample language replaces terms that provide minimal restrictions on what could be changed (e.g. the ballot's use of "etc." and the reference that the changes "should not change to content"), adds the ability for a jurisdiction to object to the change, and clarifies that a vote by the Board of Trustees must be unanimous.

North Carolina also shares the concerns raised by Prince Edward Island. Consistent usage of "three-fourths affirmative vote of the total eligible member jurisdictions" is needed to avoid any confusion. Also, consider revising the first sentence in R1635.100 -- it reads as though one can vote on roll calls.

Ballot Changes

ONTARIO
Undecided ON has significant reservations with the elements beyond a straightforward consolidation and agree with the concerns also noted by several jurisdictions. It would be preferable and allow for greater clarity if the sponsors were to isolate the additional, expanded aspects and present as a separate ballot. While there is a definite benefit in eliminating the two ballot streams, the value with the extensive amendment provisions is questionable.

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Undecided R1615 lacks clarity that it is limited to Preliminary Ballot Proposals.  It seems to allow the agreement to be changed based on 3/4ths of those in attendance at an “open meeting.”  That open meeting is not necessarily the annual meeting. 
 
R1620 somewhat conflicts with R1615 in that R1615 allows for 3/4ths of those in attendance while R1620 refers to those that do not receive 3/4ths affirmative of total eligible member jurisdictions.
 
R1620.400 reads that ballots not receiving 3/4ths affirmative at the open meeting and not needing a second comment period will be voted on during the annual meeting.  It is unclear who or how the decision of a second comment period is made – unless the R1615 vote is: proceed? yes/no; and if yes a second vote of: open to comments? yes/no. 
 
R1620.400 appears to suggest Final Ballot Proposals will be voted on during the annual meeting.  That being the case it should be clarified that the 3/4ths affirmative votes are 3/4ths of all eligible jurisdictions, not just 3/4ths of those in attendance.  It is also worth recognizing votes at annual meetings may have fewer “Commissioners” voting than votes done electronically as there are a number of Assistant Commissioners and delegates at the annual meeting.

QUEBEC
Undecided From a legal point of view; We agree with simplifying the voting process. As for the minor tweaks, we see that the list includes the "Titles". The title is one of the elements that make a law and can be used to interpret it when it is unclear. Thus, we can't endorse a change that allows the Board to change the headings as if they were minor change of the same nature as a grammatical error.

A typo error has slipped into the article R1610.200. The "to" following the addition of "will" should be removed.

RHODE ISLAND
Oppose

SASKATCHEWAN
Support

SOUTH DAKOTA
Support

WASHINGTON
Undecided
Support: 15
Oppose: 3
Undecided: 7