Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Of Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board continues review of process‑server code of ethics; debates accuracy vs. dishonesty and a ban on law‑enforcement‑like gear
Summary
The board reviewed proposed ethics edits distinguishing inaccurate returns from intentional dishonesty and debated a rule to bar process servers from wearing attire or displaying paraphernalia that could be mistaken for law enforcement; judges and compliance staff urged clearer enforcement mechanisms and a follow‑up meeting was scheduled.
The Process Server Certification Advisory Board spent a substantial portion of the meeting reviewing proposed edits to the process server code of ethics and the related sanctions matrix, but left several items for further work.
Staff member (S1) said the revisions were drafted from recurring compliance issues and explained a recommendation to split "accurate returns" and "honesty" into separate rules so the commission can distinguish honest mistakes from intentional falsehoods. Compliance manager Melinda Salcedo (S5) illustrated the difference: intentionally dating a return a day earlier would be dishonest, she said, while going to the wrong house because two houses are adjacent could be an inaccuracy rather than intentional deception.
Another substantial debate focused on a proposed prohibition on attempting to serve while "wearing a law enforcement officer's uniform or a uniform that resembles a law enforcement uniform," and on displaying badges that resemble law enforcement insignia. Staff clarified the prohibition would not apply to actual law enforcement officers serving process in an official capacity. Board members and staff debated whether the rule should be more specific about paraphernalia (tactical pants, body cameras, tasers) and cautioned that enforcement is likely to be fact‑specific. Counsel (Mister Gibson, S8) observed that such cases tend to be "fact intensive" and enforcement would proceed on a case‑by‑case basis.
Judge James de Piazza (S7) suggested a supplemental mechanism for judges to share investigations and flag process servers they deem untrustworthy so courts could give that feedback greater weight in the commission's disciplinary process. The board agreed these ideas — precise definitions for "uniform that resembles law enforcement," a clearer complaint pathway and an inter‑court information mechanism — require further drafting and review.
The advisory board paused the ethics discussion and asked staff to circulate redline documents and possible follow‑up meeting dates so the group could review proposed language in detail. The meeting then adjourned.
