Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs restructuring of Motor Vehicle Commission dispute hearings after court ruling
Summary
Lawyers and the attorney general’s office urged the committee to approve a statutory change creating a three-member independent dispute panel to hear licensee disputes for the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission in response to a Fifth Circuit ruling; the committee reported the bill with amendments.
Senate Bill 37, introduced to the House Committee on Commerce on June 2, would change how the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission (LMVC) handles disputes among licensees by creating an independent, three-member panel to hear contested matters, testimony said.
Skip Phillips, a private attorney serving as a Special Assistant Attorney General, told the committee the change responds to a United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that called into question whether commissioners who are business competitors with licensees could fairly adjudicate disputes. “We think this is a great step,” Phillips said, describing the proposal as a vehicle to bring the commission’s structure into compliance with the Fifth Circuit.
Under the proposal described in committee, the dispute panel would be composed of non-licensees—either lawyers with at least 10 years’ experience or retired judges—appointed by the governor. Panel members would hear only contested disputes; they would not participate in the commission’s other business. The bill would keep the existing number of commissioners and the governor’s appointment process for them, and it would preserve judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in the 24th Judicial District Court for decisions arising from LMVC matters.
Committee amendments clarified several technical points, named the dispute-resolution panel, and addressed compensation: the panel members would be entitled to compensation in lieu of the per diem paid to commissioners, with the commission, not the attorney general, determining compensation and the bill specifying an amount for the panel.
Representative McCormick said he had not followed the commission’s work closely until a constituent’s case came to his attention; committee members and counsel noted the change is intended to preserve licensees’ rights to dispute decisions while ensuring the decisionmakers are not direct business competitors. Vice Chair Thomas confirmed the bill does not change the court of judicial review to a different district; existing judicial review remains with the 24th JDC.
Representative Landry moved to report SB 37 as amended; the motion passed with no recorded objections and the bill was reported out of committee.
