180 likes | 311 Views
THE FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REVIEW PROCESS. July 2005 IFTA Annual Business Meeting. Where Are We Today?. Established PCR process Process identifies non-compliance General voluntary compliance No mechanism to ensure compliance. Creating a Compliance Mechanism. Create process for
E N D
THE FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REVIEW PROCESS July 2005 IFTA Annual Business Meeting
Where Are We Today? • Established PCR process • Process identifies non-compliance • General voluntary compliance • No mechanism to ensure compliance
Creating a Compliance Mechanism Create process for non-compliance issues identified through PCR to be addressed through dispute resolution process
PCR/DRC Process • Compliance plan, follow-up and reassessment process • 2/3 of full PCRC to approve final determination finding of non-compliance • PCRC refers case to DRC for enforcement of non-compliance finding • Jurisdiction can protest non-compliance finding • DRC reviews briefs and/or holds hearing • DRC renders decision • DRC decision may be appealed to Board
DRC Decision Options • No action • Immediate penalties • Penalties tied to compliance plan dates • Request for expulsion
PCR/DRC Penalty Provisions • Loss of voting power • Loss of Board and standing committee seats • Double dues 60 days after voting power lost • Triple dues 1 year after voting power lost • Expulsion resolution 1 year after voting power lost
Past Concerns • Non-material or insignificant issues raised to dispute • Fear of corrective action before time to resolve • No appeals process
Past Concerns • Non-material or insignificant issues raised to dispute • Fear of corrective action before time to resolve • No appeals process
What’s Material?Who Should Decide? • PCR Committee • PCR Team • PCR Director • PCR Administrator • IFTA, Inc. • IFTA Board • Individual jurisdiction • Jurisdictions as community
How do jurisdictions decide what is material? • Materiality criteria • Governing documents
Refining the Governing Documents • Compliance review requirements committee • Compliance review ballot development committee • Jurisdiction sponsored ballots
Past Concerns • Non-material or insignificant issues raised to dispute • Fear of corrective action before time to resolve • No appeals process
Fear of Corrective Action Before Resolution Ideal World -- Be Proactive • ID potential areas of noncompliance prior to a review • Make program adjustments as appropriate • Initiate ballots
Real World -- Not Proactive Enough, Still Not a Problem • Reviews scheduled months in advance • Review report not issued for 30 days • 30 days for jurisdiction response • 35 days for Panel to recommend follow-up or reassessment • Fair and reasonable follow-up and reassessment plan dates based on jurisdiction input
Past Concerns • Non-material or insignificant issues raised to dispute • Fear of corrective action before time to resolve • No appeals process
Opportunity for Appeal • Jurisdiction input and involvement throughout the process • Formal appeal process for referrals to DRC • Appeal of DRC finding to the Board
Steps to the Future • Standing Dispute Resolution Committee • Agreement revisions • Dispute resolution process revisions • PCR Guide revisions • 2006 may/shall ballots • Best practices guide
THE FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REVIEW PROCESS July 2005 IFTA Annual Business Meeting