My first observation is that the comment period is extraordinarily and unreasonably short. I believe it should be extended. Secondly, the Arizona Process Servers Association, an interested party to this issue, was not given notice. That being said, the attached is from the Arizona Process Servers Association and the undersigned.


Very truly yours,
ARIZONA PROCESS SERVERS ASSOCIATION

BARRY R. GOLDMAN
Secretary/Treasurer
Administrator

THIS REPLY IS BEING POSTED ON BEHALF OF, AND WITH THE CONSENT OF LARRY RATCLIFF AND CANDACE RATCLIFF OF NAVAJO COUNTY:

I believe Arizona Certified Private Process Servers are being singled out by the AOC.

As a retired Arizona Peace Officer and current Arizona Certified Private Process Server and Licensed Private Investigator, I have personal knowledge of the following.

Since the Pandemic, (COVID) and before that, private industry has found it cheaper, more convenient, and more effective for their continuing and other education to be online and self-study training. Government has also engaged in online and self-study training, finding the same. Corporations, other private businesses, and government agencies have also found online, virtual, and self-study training to be cost effective as there is no travel or time or time spent away from work. Employees can receive training at their (and their employer's) convenience at any time they so choose.

Current Arizona law enforcement officers (LEO’s) are only required to have eight hours of training a year to keep their certification . Constables are required to attend sixteen hours. These hours can be videos, live, self-study, or online/virtual training. There is no requirement as to how they receive their continuing education training, whether in-person or online. AZPOST requires training credits for any e-learning program to be distributed on an e-learning platform that has an interactive component and a testing component, similar to the State Bar. There are currently 21 Approved Distance Learning Vendors per AZPOST .

The State Bar association allows virtual and online training, with no requirement that the CLE’s be live or in person. The State Bar also allows self-study. Online programs are considered interactive if the attorney is given an opportunity to respond to prompts placed within the online course or to collect alpha numeric codes given during a replay of a program and after completion enter those codes at the conclusion of the program to obtain their certificate. There is no limit as to how many hours an attorney may take for online continuing education.
Live meetings and seminars have become, and continue to be a thing of the past with modern technology.

Furthermore, speaking from personal experience, live training or in person training is even harder to obtain for the Arizona Certified Private Process Servers who reside in rural areas. Rural Arizona Certified Private Process Servers not only have to contend with the non-availability of personal (live) continuing education training, but sometimes the lack of sufficient internet resources.

Personally, I have asked Navajo County Clerk of the Court Office to put on training for Arizona Certified Private Process Server CLE’s or to involve Arizona Certified Private Process Servers in their staff meetings for CLE’s and my requests have gone unanswered.

Larry Ratcliff
Retired Arizona Peace Officer
Arizona Certified Private Process Server
Arizona Licensed Private Investigator

Concurring:
Candace Ratcliff
Arizona Certified Private Process Server
Arizona Licensed Private Investigator

L.R. Investigations LLC & Process Service
1517 West Navajo Lane
Lakeside Arizona 85929
Phone (928)367-0510
Fax (928)367-5328
[email protected]
www/lrinvestigations.com

Please disregard "My first observation is that the comment period is extraordinarily and unreasonably short. I believe it should be extended." as I misread the deadline.

ACJA 7-204 Proposed Changes 2023

(G)(1)(b): “If the presiding judge grants renewal of a certification, the effective date of the renewal is 12:01 a.m. of the first day following expiration of the prior certification regardless of any expiration date extensions provided in this code section. The renewed certificate expires at midnight, three years from the date of issuance.”

>>>>>I support this change, as it remedies an issue that I have personally seen in the past of the Clerk of Court providing process servers with new Certification ID Cards and the Certification where the beginning and ending date is different than the previous 3-year period. The Clerk’s appeared to be under the assumption that the new Certification period began on the date the Judge signed off the renewal. This proposed wording clarifies the Certification time period.

(H)(1)(a), excerpt: The clerk shall (must) obtain records from the clerk of the county in which the process server is certified, as provided in subsection (D)(4)(a)(7), and forward those records and the complaint to the presiding judge.

>>>>> I support this change as I have advocated for years that process servers who have violated the code whether that be an ethics violation or not, complaints should be taken seriously and the presiding judge who essentially certified each of us, needs to see each and every complaint. I would go a more meaningful step further and require through the code that the Certified Process Server receive a copy of said complaint at the address on file with the Clerk of Court whether the complaint has merit or sets idle; each and every process server should be able to see the information that is presented about their conduct. We should remember that we live in a time of Social Media. If a complaint goes on deaf ears via the Code because it is fruitless or lacks integrity, the complainant may then turn to social media in an effort to destroy the reputation of the process server, his or her company, or the company that she or he is employed with. The server receiving a copy of each and every complaint filed against him or her would give the process server an opportunity to prepare for the potential backlash, or if the complaint goes to a hearing status, it would afford the server optimal time to prepare a defense.

(L)(2): “Applicability. Pursuant to Under subsection (F), all certified private process servers must complete at least ten hours of approved continuing education every twelve months in an area relevant to the work of a certified private process server. The private process server must submit documentation of completion of the continuing education for the 3-year certification period in an approved format with the application for renewal of certification. Any hours completed after the filing of the renewal application do not apply to either the current certification or the renewed certification. Only hours completed after the renewed certification is effective will apply to the continuing education requirement for the renewed certificate’s 3-year certification period. Pursuant to subsection G, a renewal period is for three years from the date of issuance of the certificate.”

>>>>>>I support the above proposed change. Too many process servers look for loopholes in avoiding necessary Continuing Education which is vital to maintain and promote industry standards (ours are the best in the United States). Years ago, servers would avoid CE training by allowing their Certification to lapse and then upon renewal would retest and receive a new Certification. The Council has since made a change to the code addressing that issue and filling that loophole. There is another change that is needed to fill a new loophole: Process servers who are not receiving their CE hours in the approved times allotted by the Code. Servers go in at renewal with 30 hours of training but they received this training after the time allotted by the Code for each year of Certification. Each year requires 10 hours X 3 years, giving you a total of 30 hours. You cannot obtain 30 hours of CE at the 11th hour because you weren’t a responsible professional. If you are conducting yourself this way with your Certification requirements, I can’t imagine you being a very reliable server in the field. This change essentially says if you are not going to be responsible and receive your CE when it is appropriate, we are not going to allow you to make it up by getting 30 hours of CE in one very short period of time. Without this change, we are setting an unethical standard across the industry that would allow process servers to pick and choose portions of the Code in which they follow. Lastly, it is unfair to the process servers who followed the Code appropriately to allow other process servers to fail to adhere to the Code as it is written.

(L)(4)(n): n. Process servers requesting CE credit for self-study shall submit documentation of completion on an approved form. Self-Study. A process server may receive continuing education credit for self-study activities, including taking correspondence courses, reviewing procedure manuals, watching video presentations, listening to audio materials, attending online seminars, and other methods of independent learning. The maximum hours of continuing education credits earned in a self-study format may not exceed 50 percent of the total number of continuing education hours required during the certification period. The remaining hours must be obtained through live training, meeting training or education provided by one or more faculty or facilitators to an individual or a group using real-time interaction.

>>>>>I support this proposed change. I have heard stories of company secretaries completing the process server’s CE self-study seminars for them and the process server submitting them as their own. Where is the accountability for doing CE on your own? When the Code was changed about ten years ago, we held in-person faculty accountable with the Allocation Form for those who wanted to receive their 10 hours of CE in one day. We made sure that each minute of a ten-hour course was accounted for so that all 10 hours could count toward our CE requirements. This change is holding us to account again. I personally believe that in-person training provides so much more than self-study videos, for example. In the last CE class that I taught, we had an attorney present who reviewed Rules, Regulations, Case law, and statutes related to service of process and an AOC representative present to listen to process servers and educate process servers about upcoming changes to the Code and other program enhancements. The Q and A was impressive and could only occur in an in-person class. You can’t receive this level of training with self-study. Who is going to give you program updates? Changes to how LLC’s are served with process according to the Arizona Corporation Commission? Changes to the Order of Protection statutes? Judicial Code changes? And the many other statute, rules, and Code changes that occur routinely? You receive all of these and much more in a classroom setting. Finally, I know that we just went through a pandemic and some people are weary to return to an in-person setting, but I say as long as you mitigate the risks of getting sick and we all use common sense there really isn’t much to be afraid of. I was diagnosed with an Autoimmune Disease in 2020. I choose with extreme caution to teach CE classes and receive my own CE requirements in person because I feel it better suits a process server’s educational needs. Since 2020, I have taught around 100 hours of CE in-person, and I would not have changed a thing with the classroom setting we had that always was conducted per county, state, and CDC guidelines. Asking the process servers to limit their self-study to 50 percent of their total CE requirements is not a tough task. It is a very significant program enhancement. In-person CE classes ensure that every process server attends and benefits from the entire instructional process. Today, too many process servers obviate the CE requirements by various means by sitting for only a small portion of each presented training video. This we hear anecdotally with frequency.

Matthew Umbower
YUPS7-25 (Certified since 2007)

The Arizona Process Servers Association is receiving commentary from both member and non-member process servers in which the servers are having difficulty logging onto the forum. We have offered to forward their comments. Please see the following unedited comment(s):

From: Rich 'Doc' Colley
<[email protected]>

So Barry I could not or didn't have credentials to comment...
But I would suspect my biggest complaint is the "live" requirement...

My comment would be this:

The whole of the world is still recovering from the Covid pandemic
and Arizona seems to be ignoring the issue. While it would appear
that the illness is successfully combated there are many who
are simply "scared" of being around large numbers of people. Just
walk into any big box store and you will see a number wearing
masks and some even gloves (on a hot day). Servers are always
in contact with the public and it is for the "public" that we would
suggest online training is better suited to the atmosphere we find
ourselves dealing with currently. And it is no more instructive
to boot. Most online CE classes are well created to allow
interaction and even substantial questions asked (all mine have
been such, I was allowed to email a question and did receive
answers in a short period). The idea of continuing education
depends upon uninterrupted and precise presentation of pertinent
information for the 'profession'. That means an "attention promoting"
atmosphere (and it is unarguable that a home/office online presence
is far more appropriate for such) that doesn't have a bunch of
background chatter, interpersonal renewal of friendships better
suited for anything except study, and the always present up and
down to renew coffee, water or other pit-stops... been in many
live CE classes and there is seldom a time when "everyone" is
in the room rather than grabbing a refreshment or attending a
personal moment. There can be no real question that "online
CE training" addresses all such "focus" issues better than live.
Please reconsiders.

Thank you Barry... IF you wish I can alter per your perspective
on exactly what is needed.
Rich 'Doc' Colley

The Arizona Process Servers Association is receiving commentary from both member and non-member process servers in which the servers are having difficulty logging onto the forum. We have offered to forward their comments. Please see the following unedited comment(s):

From: Christine Roy
[email protected]

Hi, I am Christine Roy, Private Process Server PM316 since 2004. I have read all the Administrative Office of the Courts proposed changes to the wordage of ACJA 7-204 which makes complete sense because it gets rid of cumbersome explanations of statutes. It reduces the chance of a reader not understanding the explanations of important parts of Private Process Server instructions. I do not agree with the section 4n. regarding Recertification of Private Process Servers only being able to receive 50% of the needed time, 5 hours out of 10 by utilizing online instruction. Online instruction is extremely useful because it may be very hard to get to an in person education. I live in Tucson and we are able to get 1 day a year of in person instruction by The Academy, a terrific outfit that has been challenging Process Servers for perhaps 20 years. If I am unable to take advantage of that particular day I miss out on 10 hours of CE. I must resort to online instruction or travel to Phoenix to make up work and that is just not doable. Arizona Private Process Servers should not be penalized because they live in different parts of Arizona. Online is an excellent way to go. After the CoVid mess we are all used to online learning. Thankyou for allowing me to share my thoughts on the changes planned for us the Arizona Private Process Servers.

Christine Roy

The Arizona Process Servers Association recently requested comments from those members & non-member process servers to be posted on this subject. For those unable to log into or create an account on the forum, we offered to forward their unedited email to the AOC. Please see the following unedited email reprinted with the writer’s permission:

From: "Carl LeBlanc" <[email protected]>

Hello,

My name is Carl LeBlanc, I am a fairly new Process Server working mostly Rural locations in the North Eastern part of Arizona.

I believe having a "self-study" solution to CE is reasonable considering other "Departments " of the Courts, as well as, our Police and other Law enforcement, the State Bar, etc, offer such solutions.

Driving nearly 3 hours into the metro area causes a burden that most of these other departments don't necessarily carry.

Process Service is an intricate part of the Court Process, but under supported. We carry a huge load in risk, fuel expenses, auto repair, extra time in our attempts and serves. Having to travel to "CE" cuts into our personal time, family time and extra expenses away from our region.

Please consider reasonable accommodation to reduce expense and loss if time to Process Servers.

Thank you,

Carl LeBlanc
Lic# NV2021-0005
928-707-3991

I agree with Mr Ratcliff that the comment period needs to be longer. Don Stiver

The Arizona Process Servers Association recently requested comments from those members & non-member process servers to be posted on this subject. For those unable to log into or create an account on the forum, we offered to forward their unedited email to the AOC. Please see the following unedited email reprinted with the writer’s permission:

from: Jamie Trevillyan <[email protected]>

I agree with the proposed changes the ASPA is proposing in regard to the proposed amendment being set forth in the ARIZONA CODE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION Part 7: Administrative Office of the Courts Chapter 2: Certification and Licensing Programs Section 7-204: Private Process Server. As a private process server for the past 4 years, I have only had to go through the renewal process for a private process server, once. After I submitted all the requested information, there was a delay in the fingerprint/background check that lead to a delay in my certification renewal completion. My business would have been seriously injured based on the current language outlined in the proposed amendment. Furthermore, this new language would have prohibited me from completing continuing education hours that would count towards my next renewal. As is the case with most business owners and professionals, my time is valuable, and I drive a territory that is greater than 8,000 square miles encompassing all of Cochise County, East Pima County, Green Valley County, and Santa Cruz County, therefore, I must meter my time appropriately.

The proposed language in the amendment for the renewal process would create confusion, time loss, and extraneous costs to my personal business, such that would create certain hardships in my ability to perform my profession. However, the proposed changes to the language of the amendment, that are being set forth by the ASPA are consistent with my desires as a business professional and as a representative and officer of the court. I love the work that I do as a private process server providing civil service for parties involved in the process of law. It is my hope the courts will take into consideration the words presented in the ASPA response letter and comments presented to you by process servers who feel as I do.

Thank you,
~Jamie Trevillyan

The Arizona Process Servers Association recently requested comments from those members & non-member process servers to be posted on this subject. For those unable to log into or create an account on the forum, we offered to forward their unedited email to the AOC. Please see the following unedited email reprinted with the writer’s permission:

from: Vicki Rieffer <[email protected]>

Based on what I have read the main issue would be the requirement that continuing education can only be 50% online self study. This requirement appears to move in the opposite direction of current standards for other professions. My concern is that the parties that are pushing this change have been influenced financially or stand to gain financially from this change. Process serving is not as financially rewarding as other careers, such as attorneys, who are required to maintain a continuing education, and this move will force us to pay more for classes.

Another major issue with forcing process server's to attend at least 5 hours of CE in person is the lack of available classes, especially for process server's that live in rural areas. The only resource available to most process servers is the AZ Supreme Court web site which currently lists 20 approved companies and of those, only a handful that are not online self teaching courses. These changes that I read are basically making changes but not providing assistance with those changes.

Sincerely,
Vicki Rieffer

Good morning,
My name is Matthew Uthe. I am a Certified Arizona Process server, Arizona Private Investigator, Illinois Private Investigator and Illinois Process server. I agree with most of the proposed changes, making the Clerk more transparent and holding them to a higher standard with dates and must do, rather than shall or may do is a great idea since they are in control of the certification process. Holding our profession to a higher standard with continuing education is imperative to command a higher standard with serving court documents, but in accordance to Section 4n (paragraph) and somehow making it mandatory in person training is a bit too aggressive. Why should I be penalized for performing court approved online continuing education credit but be disqualified half of my hours because it was not "in person"? How are process servers being held to a higher standard than police or constable's or attorneys? They (police or constable's and attorneys) can do all online training or videos, self study. For all intents and purposes, the courts do not even protect certified process servers from the threat of trespass while serving legal documents. I learned that online, not in person. Since the courts want to intervene and have control of the certification process, it has to be sensible. Is online learning any less effective than in person learning? Thousands of online colleges beg to differ. I attended online college in Illinois and graduated with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice, Magna cum Laude. Did I receive any less of an education? No. I actually was more focused than if I sat in the class room. Additionally, by forcing up to meet in person at a certain date, certain time, there are many negatives to this as well, for example, if someone has the flu or a cold, all of us could be exposed. Taking away valuable work time to attend in person classes rather than being able to attend late in the evening after work hours, therefor not interfering with real business activities. Thousands of companies hire remote employees every day. "In person" is nothing more than antiquated thinking. There is no reason for "in person anything". When you order a pizza, do you drive to the store and order? No, you call or order online, by the court's own determination, you have to go to the pizza place to order, that makes zero sense. It is a waste of time and energy and an exercise in futility. In summation, allowing self study and online study courses without the impendence of "in person" learning is imperative moving towards a common goal of continuing education. Whether it is in person or online, it is still continuing education, which sets us apart from the average process server.

Respectfully
Matthew L Uthe
AZCPS MC-8934
AZ PI 1714938

The Arizona Process Servers Association recently requested comments from those members & non-member process servers to be posted on this subject. For those unable to log into or create an account on the forum, we offered to forward their unedited email to the AOC. Please see the following unedited email reprinted with the writer’s permission:

from: Thomas Zollars <[email protected]>

To whom it may concern,

I'm not really fond of having to do in person study for our continuing education. Having said that, I fully concur with Ratcliff's response.

Thank you,

Matthew Umbower,
You make many valid points in your post, however, you are biased in demanding process servers get continuing education in person. By your own admission, you teach continuing education and profit from teaching in person. Therefore, you are biased because you profit from in person teaching. Are you trying to tell me my online college education is invalid because I put myself through college on off duty hours and was able to take classes at midnight? Are you trying to say that online approved or self study is any less valid? Are you saying that Police, Constables and attorneys that receive their continuing education by distance learning are not worthy of their positions? Arizona DPS disagrees with you. Distance learning is the future and in person learning is an antiquated system of leaning which will eventually disappear in the corporate world. Just because you thrive and profit from in person learning does not mean it is for everyone nor make it any more valid.

Matthew Uthe
AZ CPS MC-8934
AZ Private Investigator 1714938
Illinois Private Investigator 115-001701

The Arizona Process Servers Association recently requested comments from those members & non-member process servers to be posted on this subject. For those unable to log into or create an account on the forum, we offered to forward their unedited email to the AOC. Please see the following unedited email reprinted with the writer’s permission:

from: Glen Duke <[email protected]>


Live participation for 50% of CE is absurd. We're in a digit world.

Furthermore, 30 hours in a 3 year period should satisfy the requirement. The need for us to obtain 10 hours each year is absurd. Other industries allow for individuals to obtain their continuing education anytime prior to renewal. To name a few, Physicians, Realtors and Insurance Agents can complete their hours anytime prior to submitting their renewal for licensure. Pretty certain this is a court mandate and is out of our control.

The Arizona Process Servers Association recently requested comments from those members & non-member process servers to be posted on this subject. For those unable to log into or create an account on the forum, we offered to forward their unedited email to the AOC. Please see the following unedited email reprinted with the writer’s permission:

from: [email protected]

Why does not the AOC pick a day like July 31 for all license to expo then it is clear for the time periods for CEU to kick in plus it improves the processing of renewals

The Arizona Process Servers Association recently requested comments from those members & non-member process servers to be posted on this subject. For those unable to log into or create an account on the forum, we offered to forward their unedited email to the AOC. Please see the following unedited email reprinted with the writer’s permission:

from: Palmer Investigative <[email protected]>

Good evening -

I agree with Ratcliff and others about the CE requirements. In person would be hard for me as well, as I do not have anything available "in person" to me in Prescott. I would have to take a full day to drive to Phoenix or further, to take the class.

Just my thoughts.

Sheila Cahill

The Arizona Process Servers Association recently requested comments from those members & non-member process servers to be posted on this subject. For those unable to log into or create an account on the forum, we offered to forward their unedited email to the AOC. Please see the following unedited email reprinted with the writer’s permission:

from: Ron Ezell <[email protected]>

I am a past president of APSA and board member of the National Association of Professional Process Servers. I stand firmly with APSA and fully agree with the association’s views.

In the early 1980’s, I was (1) of (2) two individuals that worked with Judge Gerber of the Maricopa Superior Court along with (2) two of the Arizona Court Supreme Justices, Justice Feldman and Justice Zlaket that kicked off the process servers program to keep process servers under the courts and not the legislature.

Ronald R. Ezell
P.O. Box 87052
Tucson, AZ 85754
[email protected]
520.631.3877 - Cell

As a Private Process Server I object to the proposed language, "the maximum hours of continuing education credits earned in a self-study format may not exceed 50 percent of the total number of continuing education hours required during the certification period.", as listed in the proposed language below.

n. Process servers requesting CE credit for self study shall submit documentation of completion on an approved form.Self-Study. A process server may receive continuing education credit for self-study activities, including taking correspondence courses, reviewing procedure manuals, watching video presentations, listening to audio materials, attending online seminars, and other methods of independent learning. The maximum hours of continuing education credits earned in a self-study format may not exceed 50 percent of the total number of continuing education hours required during the certification period. The remaining hours must be obtained through live training, meaning training or education provided by one or more faculty or facilitators to an individual or a group using real-time interaction.

The limits on self-study is prejudice in nature and does not provide equal opportunity of all that are certified and seeking renewal. Other professions with continuing education requirements, such and Attorney and Realtors, can meet their continuing education requirements entirely online and in a self-study format. I believe that Private Process Servers should be afforded that same ability to obtain meet all their continuing education hour requirements through self-study.

In response to the objections about online training, the 50% maximum hours of CE credits located in section (L)(4)(n) only applies to self-study. The other 50% can be entirely online as long as there is the ability to interact with the instructors in real-time. 100% of CE can be obtained online, just not 100% through self-study.