August 10, 2009:

MORE NEWS!!!

North Carolina Street Rod and Replica Bill Signed Into Law A version of SEMA model legislation to create a vehicle registration classification for street rods, replicas and custom vehicles was signed into law by Governor Bev Perdue.  The new law is the product of negotiations between SEMA and the hobbyist network in North Carolina.  The law retains the key components of the SEMA-model bill while relieving vehicle owners of unfair title branding and inspection concerns.  The measure provides specific registration and titling classes for street rods and replicas; allows for the use of non-original materials; creates a titling and registration criterion that assigns replica vehicles the same model year designation as the production vehicle intended to be replicated and requires that the title of a replica vehicle clearly indicates that the vehicle is a replica and not an original.  The law is slated to take effect on Oct. 1, 2009. Thank you and congratulations to all who participated in this effort.

June 28, 2009:

Folks:  Several people from AACA, and a few of the die hard gear heads from here in Raleigh attended the subject named meeting today which was chaired by Rep Sutton. Also in attendance were Rep Goodwin and Rep Frye the sponsors of our house bill H861. We were also joined by NCDMV Commissioner Mike Robinson and Joe Gardner head of Theft and Licensing. We also had a couple of House staffers in the meeting for administrative support.

The meeting started on time and was very open and enjoyed a free flow of ideas and suggestions. A great deal of time was spent on discussing definitions of various terms used in the bill. Once it appeared that we all had at least a working understanding of the terms, we got into the details of the bill.

I learned that all weekend and up until about 11:00 a.m. today, Jim Lore had been in conversation/contact with the NCDMV. He had been working to get language for a bill that would be acceptable to both the enthusiast and the NCDMV. Once there was agreement among that group, Mr. Lore documented the agreement and provided it
to NCDMV. Prior to the start of today's meeting the Commissioner provided us with a copy of what Mr. Lore, operating on our behalf, and the NCDMV felt they could agree on. This document was used as the basis for today's discussion.

Although there were differing opinions on some items and terms, Sen Sutton proceeded to encourage discussion until agreement was reached and several compromises had been achieved. It sounds simple as I write it, but it took several hours and a lot of patience, discussion and consideration of every one's point of view. In the end I am happy to report we were able to agree to only a few minor modifications to Mr. Lore's document, and everyone in attendance felt they could now support the proposed bill. Rep. Sutton asked the staffer in attendance to codify and then circulate to all in attendance a copy of the proposed bill containing all of the agreed to language. He said he would like to bring this bill before the House Transportation committee by this Wednesday if at all possible. He has asked that we get any post meeting comments to him as soon as we receive the edited bill.

As soon as I receive a copy of this revised bill I will immediately circulate it to you all for review. I am sure there may be nits to pick, but I think we are now in very good shape on this legislation. I hope when you get your copy, that you feel the same. The NCDMV has abandoned nearly all of he "authenticity" components of the bill and will focus almost entirely on the verification of identity of the vehicles. They will primarily use the public identification information (VIN tag) as the means to do so. Only when something seems amiss on either the VIN tag or the paperwork will they investigate further. That seemed very fair to us. They will also issue titles for "non-operable" vehicles and have agree to a definition that will give us all plenty of room to get proof of ownership for even a partially complete vehicle.

Lastly, the NCDMV has agreed to change the make-up of the appeal committee that will review a contested decision by the NCDMV so that the majority of the committee members are private citizen enthusiasts with knowledge of these vehicles. These citizens will be chosen from the ranks of the "antique vehicle" enthusiast group (2), the Street Rod/Muscle Car group(2) and the remainder will be from Licensing and Theft Division of the NCDMV (2). This change clearly gives the enthusiast community a voice in the decisions.

The game is not over yet! We still have to get the bill through the final hearing in the House Transportation Committee, and then on to the House Finance Committee. Assuming it clears those hurdles it then goes back to the Senate where it must still get final acceptance. Our hope is that since we and the NCDMV have now agreed
to this bill, that there would be little reason for either the House or the Senate not to vote in favor of it.

It could happen, but it shouldn't as far as we know. The last step would be for the bill to be sent to the Governor to be signed into law. I think we are all of the mind that we now need to get this bill heard and passed as soon as possible. There is nothing to be gained by further delay. It's possible that due to staffer's work load that we might not see the bill in time to make this Wednesday's Transportation Committee meeting. If that is the case we would hope to get it the following Wednesday for sure.

I want to again to take this opportunity to let you know that all that has been accomplished over the weekend and through today's meeting was as a result of the diligent efforts of Mr. Jim Lore. By the time the meeting took place today, Jim has already negotiated an agreement to nearly every point in the final proposed bill.
That act made it possible for us to achieve consensus where previously none was possible. We owe Jim a great deal of respect and appreciation. He has not asked for, nor would he accept, one penny for all of the hard work he has done for us. He often had to forgo the demands of his own private legal practice to assist us. When you see him, at least say thanks.

I'll keep you posted.

                                                                  ~ Gordon

June 17, 2009:

Folks: What we have here, in these attachments, is S820 in each of its versions, as originally authored, then as amended by the NCDMV, followed by the PCS (POST COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE) that we/the sponsors requested (which changes it back to its original form), and then #2.pdf which is the latest language that the NCDMV is asking us and the legislators to accept. If you read just the first paragraph of their proposed bill, you will see that we cannot support it. It is once again so broad as to make it possible for the NCDMV to brand ANY vehicle as "Specially constructed", "Modified", or "Custom". If you read further you will see that they are now calling their "inspections" "verifications". Still the same thing, if you add in the terminology from the first paragraph and then refer to the section where they brand your titles and registrations.

In a nut-shell, they still want to do the same thing, keep us from being able to restore or modify our vehicles without penalty of branding and special inspections. They are just NOT interested in cooperating. They are dead set on branding EVERY vehicle in some way. The fact is that H861 and S820 with the proposed PCS will give the NCDMV all of the authority they need to address the problems that were originally the cause of all of this conflict: A NCDMV Theft and Licensing Investigator and the former Commissioner of the NCDMV improperly agreed to grant a none replica title for a
replica vehicle. That is wrong is our book. The problem is, that now they are trying to use the need to correct that situation, that their department caused, as justification to over-reach the needed authority.

Now they want to undertake to classify or authenticate all vehicles 35 years and older. First they want permission to do so on vehicles from out of state, then it is their stated aim to then carry out these same actions on vehicles already in the state. At the hearing today in the House Transportation Committee, our PCS and to some extent the bill, was discussed. The discussions roamed around a bit with several of the house members expressing opinions and asking We were fortunate that we had our two Senate sponsors at the hearing, Sen. Hartzell and Sen. Berger. Each of the Senators explained that the PCS that was being requested would make this Senate bill agree with the already heard, and supported H861 bill. A little further discussion, and the chair of the Transportation Rep Cole sent the bill back to a study committee led by Rep Sutton with Rep Goodwin and Rep Frye also in the committee (two of the three members of this committee are strong supporters of our position).

We have been invited to attend this committee proceeding, and it will take place some time early next week we think. The NCDMV will also be in attendance, in all likely hood, since they are VERY urgent to get a bill passed. They don't like the heat and visibility we have been causing them. We had some great support today at the hearing from the Corvette Club International and the AACA (Antique Automobile Club of America). It turns out that over a year ago several fellows offered to help the NCDMV understand that what they are asking for permission to do, cannot be done by a NCDMV inspector. The inspectors were invited into the AACA official's garage in an effort to show them why classifying old cars will be nearly impossible for them to do well. The NCDMV personnel we even allowed to bring along a video recorder so they could later use the information for training. The result was that the AACA official became frustrated and finally determined that either these people could not be trained or were not listening to what he was saying. They insisted on continuing to look for numbers on vehicles in places where none ever existed. This same group of NCDMV personnel was then handed off to another AACA official that had expertise in another
brand of vehicles. Once again, the NCDMV personnel refused to accept the input that was offered about the impossibility of trying to classify these vehicles, whether for purposes of "branding" of "authentication".

The AACA members and their officials are arguably the most qualified group in the state to use for authentication information. But the NCDMV still chose to ignore their input, and forged ahead with their desires. If they can't understand and master the information about "original" restored vehicles, how on earth will they deal with a vehicle with some minor modifications. The commissioner keeps telling people that he won't brand a car if it only has some minor modification or other, but he keep putting terminology into their proposed bills that say exactly the opposite. Does that seem odd to you?

We will be at next week's committee and we will do everything we can to get an acceptable bill crafted. We are hopeful..........we are just NOT optimistic yet. If you wish to attend the meeting, let us know so we can send you the time, day and location. This will be a good chance to be heard.

                                                                  ~ Gordon

June 16, 2009:

I just got a call from Joanna, the lobbyist for the DOT, asking if we had language for a bill we could support. I told her that we had been promised by Joey that he would get us something by the Friday after our last meeting.We are still awaiting that language.I further told her that it was my opinion that our original S820 and H861 gave the NCDMV everything that they needed to title and register the vehicles in question (Replicas, Customs, Street Rods). I told her that the Commissioner himself said that he has need to classify a 40 Ford, or any other car, as anything other than what it is......a 40 Ford. I got her to agree that he has repeatedly said that, in each discussion where the bills have been heard. She agreed.

I then said that if he really felt that way, he should just support either of our bills, as we had written them, without the amendments that they keep trying to add. I specifically said that we would NEVER support a bill with the "frame rail, chassis or body" replacement/ modification language in it, because that broad statement meant NO vehicle could be considered unmodified. There could be no restoration of an original vehicle that would be acceptable under the DMV language. There could be no use of "non-original to the vehicle" parts of ANY kind, either for restoration or upgrading of ANY vehicle. The way they have written it, you cannot even use an original part from another original vehicle. I explained that even new vehicles often require replacement of parts such as brakes or shocks (parts of the chassis); fenders or windshields (parts of the body or bumper brackets (now part of the frame rail of a unibody vehicle).

I told her that if the commissioner was being truthful when he said he was not going to brand a car for minor modifications, then he didn't need any additional language added to our bills. She said she understood and would convey the message. She said that the Commissioner REALLY wanted to get the bill out of committee tomorrow. I said that would please us as well, IF it were our bill, AND it did not have the objectionable language included. She said she would get back to me.

ALSO:
I just had a conversation that leads me to believe that the members of the AACA may not understand what is being proposed here. There is a feeling that the bills that are being proposed by Sen. East and the NCDMV will protect the authenticity of American Antique Automobiles. It is not clear to them that the proposed language from Sen East would also prohibit them from restoring these great old vehicles. Sen. East's language clearly makes it unacceptable to "replace any part of the frame rail, chassis, body or any part attached thereto, whether the part is new or used". The enforcement, to the letter, of such a law would mean that NO form of restoration would be permissible. I fear that the AACA thinks that these bills will only affect "modified" vehicles, such as customs and street rods. That is not at all the case! It does not differentiate between a Model A or a 1970 Chevy pick-up truck. If you change a part, you must receive a branded title and registration under Sen. East's bill or the bills proposed by the NCDMV. We have to get the AACA to really understand what's at stake here. We then need to get them to take action to contact their representatives and ask them to support our bills S820 and H861 to protect the restorers and the other auto enthusiasts. We have very common interests in this issue I am just concerned that it isn't well understood. I'll let you know if I hear anything from Joanna.

                                                                  ~ Gordon

June 15, 2009:

Folks, the DMV has apparently spent the last week lying to the members of the House Transportation Committee about our support for their amendments to our house bill H861. We did NOT support their amendments to H861. In fact, we got a PCS on that bill to remove their amendments. This shows the integrity of the people we are trying to work with at the NCDMV. They told us that they would get back to us with proposed language, that would address our concerns, by the Friday after our last attempt to get the bill heard by the house transportation committee.

NONE of us have heard a word from the NCDMV. They instead spent the time with representatives lobbying for only the interest of the DMV and telling them they had our support. I don't think that any public official should lie to citizens, lie to legislators and then proceed to do exactly what they said wouldn't do. The NCDMV said they would not move forward with the bill until we had language we could all agree to. This behavior has been during our interactions the DMV, and SOME of the legislators that are supporting them. They do not feel bound to be factual in their representations to the citizens or legislators. They will say whatever they
have to, to get what they want, more control!

WHY WOULD THE NCDMV BE SO INTENT ON GETTING ALL OF THIS ADDITIONAL POWER OVER THESE OLD VEHICLES?

It is not about stolen vehicles... they only found 4 suspected vehicles after looking at over 4,420 vehicles over an 18 month period. It's not about integrity in the Titles that North Carolina issues.....nothing that they propose to do will have the effect of changing the integrity......and there was never a problem to begin with. (Unless you consider the improper behavior of the past NCDMV Commissioner and some of the NCDMV staff that started all this mess).

It's not about improving service to the public... the NCDMV Commissioner's own report says that they are delaying the registration and/or titling of approximately 212 vehicles, so the NCDMV can get additional information on the vehicles. (all the while depriving those citizens of the required documentation for a vehicle they purchased and brought into North Carolina) One fellow waited almost 2 years for a title for his vehicle.

It can't be about validating the authenticity of the vehicles... since most of the Theft and Licensing Investigators are law enforcement officers, not automobile experts. They often don't even know what type of vehicle they are looking at. Maybe it's about the need for control and a means to get more headcount and budget for the NCDMV. What do you think?

Our bill, H861, provides the NCDMV and the citizens with everything they need to properly register Replica, Street Rod and Specially Constructed vehicles. Our bill does NOT put the NCDMV into the business of validating the originality of every component on any vehicle. The NCDMV should NOT be placed in that position of validation, since to do so would require a level of expertise that they could never attain. Automobile appraisers and private inspectors spend years and years working to become competent at providing professional opinions about authenticity of vehicles. It often requires weeks, months or even years to conduct the necessary investigations and research which would allow authentication of any particular vehicle.

Shortly, you can expect to receive a message, from me or an associate, asking you to contact Gov. Perdue to raise her awareness about the actions of this appointed NCDMV public official, and those supporting his actions. We feel we have gone to great lengths to reach a reasonable compromise with the DMV and their supporters, but we can no longer allow them the luxury of our patience. The actions that they are taking, with support of a few highly placed politicians, are still designed to deprive us of the quiet enjoyment of our hobby and its supporting industry.

We have the very much appreciated support of SEMA (Steve MacDonald) and EVERY auto enthusiast's organization in North Carolina that we have been able to contact, and they are MANY! We have enjoyed enormous benefit and support from Representatives Godwin, Barnhart, Crawford, Frye and Lucas, we owe them a debt of gratitude for listening, understanding, sponsoring and supporting our bill H861. The members of the House Transportation Committee have repeatedly overwhelmingly voted to support our H861, and we owe thanks and support to those members that have voted in favor of our bill.

While you wait for the next communication with the contact information for Gov. Perdue I ask that you take the time to do the following: Please put into words all of the problems you and your friends have encountered during the last 18
months as you tried to register your vehicles. Include the damage to the vehicles caused by the Theft and Licensing Investigators; the time that has been consumed trying to get an appointment for the inspections; the time it took to complete all the actions that the Theft and Licensing personnel insisted you take; the amount of time you had to wait after completing all of the requirements of the DMV (and the different answers you got, for the same question, from different DMV officials); the reclassification or "branding" of your vehicle and its title and/or registration; the demands to disassemble the vehicle to look for "covert identification numbers" and what was done if you refused;
the way your were treated when the Theft and Licensing investigations were being conducted (don't forget the part where they reminded you that they had a badge and that they carried a gun); describe the level of, or lack thereof, knowledge these investigators have about the vehicles they are looking at.

If you are in the industry that supports our great hobby, please take some time to describe the size (number people and dollars) and general location of your enterprise; how your company contributes to the state and to the community you help support. Provide your personal projection of how passing a bill that will in effect "punish" a customer if they use your company's products or services. If you would, please forward this message to everyone you have contact information for, that you know will be effected by what the NCDMV is asking the legislators to allow them to do.

In all of the correspondence be sure to demand support for H861 with the PCS modifications that make it identical to S820, both of which are enthusiast authored; supported by SEMA and sponsored by legislators that are supportive of our interests.

                                                                  ~ Gordon

June 13, 2009:

Please forward this information on to other car enthusiasts. The more people we have calling, the better we will be. We have listed the names, cities and phone numbers of our state on a document (click to view and/or print) to make your job as easy as possible. We have also given you some information about the Bills underneath the list of names so you know what to say to your Reps.

June 3, 2009:

Gordon McGilton was present on June 3, but time ran our in the session and we will have to go back next Wednesday, June 10. He told me the following: On June 3, after the session, the DMV asked to meet with our Bill representatives to ask for a better idea of what our needs are. It was the first productive meeting we have held with them! They are getting a lot of heat (emails and phone calls) from the legislators. They REALLY want to reach a compromise with us, and are willing to change their bill significantly, or work with us on OUR bill. They do NOT want any more visibility over the matter. We told them that we just want a bill that will allow us to enjoy our hobby and will allow the industry that supports us to thrive.

The DMV commissioner has asked us to provide some words that can be placed into the bill that will be acceptable to us, but will give them some authority relative to these vehicles. We agreed that we would work on some suggestions.

Attorney and Champion Jim Lore agreed to be the gatekeeper for all of the suggestions and craft them into our bill. We will them get it to the DMV for comment. Please keep pushing ahead with our bill to keep the pressure on them. More work is to be done before next Wednesday, June 10, 2009.