Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Richard Perkins
Document
Sun Archives
- Auto body shop bill's backer denies conflict (4-28-2009)
- Localities to spend more than $1 million on lobbyists (2-1-2009)
- The lobbyists behind the lawmakers (2-1-2009)
- Council approves former police chief as Henderson lobbyist (12-16-2008)
Beyond the Sun
Former Assembly speaker and current lobbyist Richard Perkins is pushing a bill that would require the DMV to contract with a private company to verify motorists’ automobile insurance.
Under the legislation, an amended version of Assembly Bill 504, only one company would qualify for the contract, according to Perkins and Department of Motor Vehicles officials.
That company, Michigan-based InsureNet, has hired Perkins as its lobbyist.
DMV Director Edgar Roberts said he had strong concerns about the legislation because it would circumvent the state’s bidding process, which is intended to guarantee that taxpayers get the best deal.
If AB504 passes, “the department would be obligated, by law, to contract with that company,” he said. “That circumvents the request-for-proposal process.”
DMV officials acknowledged the department’s system for verifying that registered cars have insurance, as required by law, is slow and inefficient. It can take up to 45 days for the department to become aware of a lapse in insurance.
The DMV considered contracting with a private company to improve the insurance check system, but decided to develop one in-house. In September the state’s Interim Finance Committee approved $377,000 in overtime and other expenses so the department could develop technology to more quickly conduct the checks.
The DMV “is in the process of redesigning its insurance verification program,” Roberts said.
Robert Feldman, head of the Nevada Insurance Council trade group and head of the governor’s task force on the DMV, said he questioned at first the department’s decision to develop its own system.
“Originally, I thought they should contract with a third-party vendor. But they felt they had the qualifications to do it all on their own, and save themselves millions in current and future costs,” he said. A number of states, including Utah, Florida, Texas and New Mexico, contract with companies to perform insurance verifications. Were the state to hire a private company, it could choose from among several firms, Feldman said.
Roberts questioned InsureNet’s qualifications and experience. “As far as we can tell the company that would be the sole provider has no track record of providing its services to other departments of motor vehicles,” he said.
Calls and messages to InsureNet requesting comment for this story weren’t returned.
Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, said if the state is going to use a contractor, it should allow as many competing bidders as possible. “You want legislation written broadly, for the maximum number of bids, so you can evaluate not only the pricing, but the specifications of what you want,” Vilardo said.
Perkins, a former Henderson police chief, said the company is the only one with access to a multistate insurance information network, the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System, or NLETS, which police officers in the field use to check whether out-of-state drivers have insurance.
“InsureNet is the only company currently associated with NLETS, but others could be,” Perkins said. “They have intimate knowledge of the industry and credibility with law enforcement.”
Asked whether the state would be at a disadvantage during negotiations, since only one company could qualify under the bill, Perkins said: “The state isn’t going to give away the store ... The last thing I want is to cost the state a lot of money.”
Roberts said he was concerned that, according to news accounts of proposed contracts InsureNet has entered elsewhere, the company would take 30 percent of commissions on fines issued for insurance lapses. For the last fiscal year in Nevada, that would mean $5 million “going to a private company instead of into state coffers,” Roberts said.
The bill would require the company to gather photos of license plates and check whether the vehicles are insured. Perkins said this would bring the state more revenue.
AB504 was introduced to allow red-light cameras in North Las Vegas. “The bill wasn’t going anywhere,” so he asked for the amendment, Perkins said.
Assemblyman Kelvin Atkinson, D-North Las Vegas and chairman of Assembly Transportation Committee, entered the amendment. But he said he was never told only one company would qualify under the bill.
“DMV never expressed that to me,” he said.
The bill passed the Assembly Transportation Committee and was referred to Assembly Ways and Means. The bill has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.
Already the current No-Fault insurance system unfairly protects the wealthy by forcing the poor to participate in coverage that the poor do not want or need. A much, much smaller percentage of a wealthy persons wage go toward auto insurance. The poor man can't even afford a cheap vehicle because its annual inurance payments are more than the car is worth and more than he can afford. This is another LAW that benefit the insurance companies! I prefer we go back to insurance basics: Those with assets to protect should buy insurance to cover his personal wealth. Now we talk of another LAW to benefit an insurance company and protect them from competition? This is to save us money? Duh. No way, Jose.
Pay for play?
when are we going to get rid of these scumbags
The old fox in the henhouse game.
There is one born every minute.
Ace's
This whole verification thing is a thinly disguised way to get $250 fines. I am not fooled by it. I personally have gotten three notices over the years looking for the $250 each time, and the DMV's information has been wrong.
First of all, why is it the DMV gets the $250? Since when are THEY harmed by my not having insurance?
Secondly, if you cant afford insurance, how are you supposed to GET insurance AND pay the $250? Its like putting people in debtors prison and expecting them to pay back what they owe.
Thirdly, if the goal is to prevent people who are not insured from driving, this program isnt very effective. I could continue driving until my tags expired without raising the attention of the highway patrol.
Fourthly, we should probably go to a system where my insurance pays for what I cause AND my own injuries. That way I can insure what counts for me, without worrying about who else has insurance.
Perkins is the go-to guy for the dirty deal. When is this newspaper going to write a story on Perkins for giving his wife, an employee at the Henderson Police Department, a vehicle that the police seized from some criminal?
Jesus God, is the city of Henderson a criminal enterprise? We're paying him 120G large to lobby for the city in Carson City with taxpayer money? Now he's working for another company at the same time? Plus you know he's pushing that additional 1/4% sales tax increase for his beloved Tahoe Donut loafers? Something needs to be done to stop this abuse of our money. The State controls 80% of Henderson's revenue, and we cannot let them change it. To paraphase the lawyer at the McCarthy hearings in the 50's-"Have you no shame, Mr. Perkins?"
My wife and i share a vehicle. We both have clean driveing records.We recently bought a newer pick up and after all is said and done, it will cost us more to take the bus system,than it will to insure,register,smog this truck. But not by much? What gets me most is this, when we bought this truck, the registration was 32 bucks. just to register this truck here, 356 bucks? insurence where we bought it, full coverage 600 every 6 months. Here, just for one month, 293 bucks,and thats just pd,pl? WHATS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Firstly, let me agree with most of you that Richard Perkins is slime, slime and more slime. He is as corrupt as they come. He's not even friendly. I hope that Ways and Means never let's this see the light of day.
Secondly, for some of the posters here - remember it is a privilege to operate your vehicle on Nevada roads and byways. It is not a "right" protected by the constitution. You don't want to pay insurance? Then - take the bus, walk, ride your bike, carpool, etc.. The $250 fine is too little. It should be nearer $500 for those who "forget" to pay their insurance bill. A good $500 fanny paddling will help them remember in the future. For many people getting the $250 fine is cheaper than getting insurance until they're ticketed by the police - then it get's real - as their car can be towed, they can be jailed, and the fines start around $1200 - and they also loose their license and are thrown into insurance "pools" where rates are higher if they have to file an SR-22 for three years.
Registration fees in Nevada are amongst the highest in the nation - why? Because we have no state income tax. The legislature uses these higher fees into the general fund.
I have always wondered why the state itself does not offer insurance through the DMV? I'm guessing it's because they'd be liable over and above. However, it is a concept worth studying.
Back to Perkins... of course this insurance reinstatement department outsourcing should be bid out. His proclamation that only one company can handle it is so transparent as to be high comedy.
There is a very big story here but not the one you are following. It is instead the AIG-led Insurance Industry Committee on Motor Vehicle Insurance and the big insurers forcing their will on the DMV and the DMV's acceptance of it along with privacy violations and ensuring insuers have no litigation issues or transparency so....no pressure on reducing rates. The comments made about InsureNet are likewise, totally inaccurate as had you provided an opportunity to speak with us, (rather than calling so late), you would have known. Any company capable of meeting security and accuracy standards can join NLETS so this is NOT a sole source issue at all. That said, the highly invasive, (sends out blanket emails with names and addresses to the hundreds of insurers in the state with little protection) and total lack of accuracy is the reason that the version the DMV is promoting was rejected by NLETS in December. NLETS is the connection to all law enforcement in the U.S. and they have worked hard to determine policies that protect the Public...an obligation to the Public that Nevada DMV is ignoring. Likewise, we have over eight years of experince with DMVs and NLETS handles tens of millions of DMV transmissions monthly and has done so for over 40 years. Our Associate Company handles insurance verification of a different type for over 48 million Americans. The focus should be on the massive damage done by those who will not obey the law, the refusal of big insurance to place the interest of people first and allow a means to monitor and force rates down, and the fact that we have not and will not propose to Nevada that the State should pay anything at all. We are happy to take a small share of the demonstrable new revenues provided and the States gets something that really works, that is used almost 100 million times a month, (NLETS), that will force insurance costs down and protect everyone's privacy. Attorneys tell us that the DMV proposal will violate Federal Law, (DPPA), but it will at least violate the trust of the People of Nevada. Other companies have had years to meet NLETS standards for accuracy and response times. Should Nevada be made to suffer because they failed? Should Nevada allow bureaucrats to sell out to big insurance and keep prices high? Should bureaucrats be allowed to sell out regaring the People's right to privacy? As I said...a very big story and one that needs telling...along with some significant corrections regarding the version just printed by the Sun. If the People of Nevada and the Nation have learned anything in the last few months, it is that vehicle insurers should not self-regulate or even worse, co-opt government to provide cover for continuing decades of abuse of policyholders, taxpayers, healthcare insurers, hospitals, and the PUBLIC. It's time for something that can't know or care who is driving the car. Jonathan Miller, Chair, InsureNet, Inc.
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Verifying current insurance? Isn't that the piece of paper that is required to be shown when registering a vehicle?! Doesn't it have an expiration date printed on it as well?! Expired date means not current, doesn't it??? NV needs to pay an outfit to do something that is read at the time of registration?! If some DMV staff are allowing registrations through without current insurance, then that would be a staff discipline issue and if it's a big problem, then NV should pay for their laziness through the budget process, (getting less money.) I don't understand Mr. Miller's comments; how and why would rates be lowered? Is "...but it will at least violate the trust of the people of NV" a typo? Self-regulating...?
It is very easy with the current system to purchase insurance and pay only the first payment but keep the card to mislead an officer. It is not difficult to use an old card and any graphics program then create a new one with a computer and color printer. Nevada has no way to properly determine current insurance and that is one of the many things the offered solution would provide. In other states this is no longer an issues as no valid insurance = no registration. The system offered can accept, maintain and thus use no names and addresses. It does not need them as it is only interested in the vehicle. Mickey Mouse could be driving....it does not matter. For DMV to send out your name and address to hundreds of insurers over the internet is a violation of the Public trust. The system they are proposing can be seen at iicmva.com, go to 'publications" then to the most recentone, (User Manual), then see pages 16, 28 and 32 which describes how YOUR name and address could be used. This is because everywhere tried that concept has failed and they are now adding more data fields to try and get a match and....make it work so as to avoid transparency and see their prices fall. There are portals for the public and privacy, consumer and many organizations in support of the People. The level of uninsured vehicles, uninsured motorist insurance payouts, eliminated repair scams and much else are posted daily for all to see. The big profits can be cut down based on all these new revenues/savings to insurers and the price of insurance will fall. The Insurance commissioner and Fraud Director get daily reports. There are no names or addresses so the Public too has full access to the system via telephone and internet. Vehicle insurance in Nevada is among the ten most expensive in the U.S. according to insurance.com and rising fast, (rose 6.6% just from 2006 to 2007). It is long overdue that the State fixes it and that DMV protects the People of the State rather than AIG and the other big insurers.
Reference to portals and access for and benefits to the public relate to the proposed solution, certainly not to the IICMVA approach promoted by DMV.
Perkins is a tool. What did anybody expect, that he was going to Carson City to clean it up?
Another moment in Nevada's legacy of corruption
Where is the Attorney General when you need him.
Dr. Miller's convoluted essay on why his company is just so great for us in Nevada is a sham. He suggests Nevada sends personal information to multitudes of insurance companies - false - further more - prove it!! He also suggests that his company will dramatically reduce non-insured motorists and hence put him out of business. Wow, what a great business model.
Law enforcement can issue a citation to any motorist (secondary offense) even if they are providing "current insurance" cards. The police are not that stupid as Dr. Miller would truly have you believe. In other literature - he implies he or his company will only take a small percentage of the $250 reinstatement fees - like maybe 20% (figures to be $50 to him rather than the state). How much of that goes to Perkins if the state adopts this company? Any guesses? Going on... he wants cameras on every lightpole capturing license plates that his computers will verify if insurance is current - if not - prepare for an immediate insurance violation - and pay Dr. Miller his $50 pronto. Of course, he does not intend to put the cameras up himself - Mr. Perkins will be out there in the July heat installing all over the state. Yeah, right. The insurance verification system in place at the DMV has its problems - but this guy would create even more problems while he heralds the importance of privacy rights - BS!!
http://anointednews.com/2009/03/19/chica...