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 - 2024

Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALBERTA		 Support As the Board works extensively with the Articles of Ageement they are a party that is likely to come across minor issues that may require a non substantive change so it would make sense to allow the Board to recommend non substantve changes. As the proposed changes are non substantive and the process involves a 30 day period of comment by member jurisdictions there is no concern that changes are ultimately approved by a vote of the Board.

BRITISH COLUMBIA		 Support

IDAHO		 Undecided Has there been any discussion of rather than adding the Board to section R1605.200.005; perhaps removing them from R1600?

INDIANA		 Undecided We would require a definition of non-substantive in the ballot language to decide.

KANSAS		 Undecided

MAINE		 Support The current procedures for non-substantive changes includes a 30 day review period by member jurisdictions.  With this step we see no problem with the Board submitting the proposed changes. 

MANITOBA		 Support

MICHIGAN		 Support

NEBRASKA		 Undecided

NEW BRUNSWICK		 Support

NEW HAMPSHIRE		 Undecided New Hampshire is undecided for many of the same reasons stated by Idaho, Indiana and Quebec. Perhaps the Board of Trustees of the Association could refer their non-substantive changes to one of the IFTA committees to review and submit to the Board of Trustees for approval?

NEW JERSEY		 Oppose

NORTH CAROLINA		 Support North Carolina agrees with Idaho and Quebec that the ballot is contrary to the original intent of R1605. As noted by Quebec, R1605.200.025 provides that the Board of Trustees is the final 'check' to ensure that the changes submitted are not substantive changes. It appears problematic to allow the Board of Trustees, an indispensable part of ensuring that a change is non-substantive, to approve its own submission.
 
It is important for all jurisdictions to understand that changes made to the governing documents outside the ballot process should be done with great care and caution. The ballot removes an important protective measure and creates an appearance of conflict for the Board of Trustees that it should avoid. This gives North Carolina pause.
 
Nevertheless, North Carolina considers there are other sufficient protective measures in place.

NOVA SCOTIA		 Oppose

OKLAHOMA		 Oppose

ONTARIO		 Support

PENNSYLVANIA		 Support

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND		 Support

QUEBEC		 Undecided Currently, section R1605.200.05 provides that a jurisdiction or committee may propose non substantive amendements other than by ballot. Since it is the Board of Trustees that votes on whether or not to accept non-substantive amendments (R1600.200.025), it seems curious to us that the Board is allowed to submit amendments on which it will vote on. We wonder if it would not have been appropriate for the Board to be removed from section R1600 instead to eliminate the conflict between the language of section R1600 and R1605.200.005

SASKATCHEWAN		 Support

WASHINGTON		 Support

WYOMING		 Support
Support: 13
Oppose: 3
Undecided: 6

© Copyright 2024 IFTA, Inc. All Rights Reserved