Arkansas Antique Car Plates

Email
To: Mike Walker and George Beyers
From: Raymond Harrill
Date: January 19, 2009

Gentlemen:

I apologize for being tardy in responding. I have been absolutely buried in work since George's query of January 6 with his draft letter. Since then I have read every email and offer my comments.

1. I agree with Shane Broadway that whatever is said to the legislators/officials of DFA that it should be low key.

2. I think that any comments should be specific to the antique hobby and NOT attack the street machine people or their misuse. I agree with Duren that the problem is enforcement: a problem that has increased exponentially in the last five years. As George noted, it is a problem that can be remedied in two ways: Educate the revenue employees as to the proper issuance of the plate; and encourage proper enforcement of existing law.

3. Notwithstanding the fact that the MOTAA board failed to get involved proactively, notably they did not revoke the authority that I was given two years ago to speak as needed with the badge of MOTAA behind it. I will do so just I planned to do two years ago when we went to the committee meeting.

4. I am not yet aware of any new bill this session. I favor not proposing a bill because I would prefer to see the existing law enforced over tinkering with the law by people who do not understand the issue, nor the difference between an authentic auto and a street machine. The present law gives the revenue commissioner rule making authority. They could make whatever rules are necessary without changing the law. I favor that approach.

5. If a bill is introduced I prefer to appear at the committees and request opportunity to speak. My experience is that the members do not read their mail, nor answer calls (unless you personally know them). We know the hot buttons from the last go around and can tailor the arguments around them.

6. If the issue does arise, George and I had similar approaches, but I tried to construct a method which removed as much monitoring from the police as possible. The police don't want to be bothered with another duty. We can work together on this.

Please keep me in the loop if you hear of any new bills.

Raymond

Email

To: Raymond Harrill, Mike Walker
From: George Beyers
Date: January 16, 2009

I'm going to email photos of a couple of violators and see what happens.

Should be interesting. If it works, we can have them cleaned up in rapid order.

Comments?

George

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Roger Duren <Roger.Duren@dfa.arkansas.gov>
To: George Beyers <gbeyers@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:14:29 PM
Subject: RE: Antique Tag

Mr. Beyers,

We rely on law enforcement officials to enforce motor vehicle laws. If we receive a report that an antique tag is on a vehicle that does not qualify, we send a letter requesting that the owner relinquish the tag within a certain date and register with an appropriate tag for the vehicle.  We then follow up with system inquiries to see if the owner has complied and, if not, we ask law enforcement to investigate.

Roger Duren, Administrator
Office of Motor Vehicle
501-682-4661

-----Original Message-----
From: George Beyers [mailto:gbeyers@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:34 PM
To: Roger Duren
Cc: George & Donna Beyers
Subject: Re: Antique Tag

Mr. Duren,

Thanks for you reply and comments.

I would appreciate your answer to the 2 questions. How does it get enforced? If I sent you photos of vehicles in violation of the law could you take care of it ?

George

From: Roger Duren <Roger.Duren@dfa.arkansas.gov>
To: gbeyers@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:37:03 PM
Subject: FW: Antique Tag

Mr. Beyers,

Thank you for sharing your memo with us, we have reviewed it and not have anything to add to your comments.  All bills filed by the legislature involving vehicle title and registration are forwarded to us for review and we provide an impact statement. This would be the case for any bill filled involving antique vehicle registration.

Roger Duren, Administrator
Office of Motor Vehicle
501-682-4661

-----Original Message-----
From: George Beyers [mailto:gbeyers@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 11:46 AM
To: Roger Duren
Cc: George & Donna Beyers; Raymond Harrill
Subject: Antique Tag

Mr. Duren,

My one question, where it states "If the office (D.M.V.) determines that the owner of such an antique motor vehicle is in violation of this section, the antique motor vehicle license plate shall be seized by the office and the owner fined one hundred dollars ($100)."

Just who is the "office"? How can we get that enforced? That is the key to the solution.

Thanks again for your time & interest.

George


George Beyers

1500 Sharon Road

Benton, AR 72019-6122

Work Phone......(501) 776-0790

Home Phone......(501) 776-1399

George's Cell.....(501) 776-5155

Donna's Cell......(501) 840-2000

Fax...................(501) 776-3986

George's email gbeyers@sbcglobal.net

Donna's email dgbeyers@sbcglobal.net

Home page URL http://www.georgebeyers.com

And the first email that started the current round...

Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:07:28 -0800
From: gbeyers@sbcglobal.net
Subject: Antique Tag
To: bjohnson@arkleg.state.ar.us; cnhc@juno.com; taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us; cappsj@arkleg.state.ar.us; hendrenk@arkleg.state.ar.us; hendrenk@arkleg.state.ar.us; bookoutp@arkleg.state.ar.us; trustys@arkleg.state.ar.us; hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us; avclemmer@sbcglobal.net; hydeb@arkleg.state.ar.us; pierceb@arkleg.state.ar.us; kingb@arkleg.state.ar.us; greenbergd@arkleg.state.ar.us; wyattd@arkleg.state.ar.us; wyattd@arkleg.state.ar.us; hutchinsond@arkleg.state.ar.us; glidewellf@arkleg.state.ar.us; fredallen99@comcast.net; shelbyg@arkleg.state.ar.us; housej@arkleg.state.ar.us; roebuckj@arkleg.state.ar.us; hoytj@arkleg.state.ar.us; reynoldsl@arkleg.state.ar.us; cowlingl@arkleg.state.ar.us; evansl@arkleg.state.ar.us; davenportm@arkleg.state.ar.us; daviso@arkleg.state.ar.us; adcockp@arkleg.state.ar.us
CC: sbroadway@arkleg.state.ar.us; Roger.Duren@rev.state.ar.us; mike.munns@rev.state.ar.us; raymond.harrill@sbcglobal.net; bnix2@att.net

To: Arkansas Senate & House Transportation Committee Members

       Please read the entire memo.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it!

Re: Arkansas Code Title 27, Subtitle 2, Chapter 15, Sub-chapter 22 - Historical or Special Interest Vehicles

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members and interested parties,

My name is George Beyers. I live in Benton, Arkansas and own 2 "authentic" antique vehicles. One is a multiple “Trophy Winning” 1928 Model A Ford Roadster Pickup - one of two “running” of it’s kind in the State. The other is a 1928 Model A Ford Tudor Sedan - a running, un-restored, rust colored, ragged interior, original, authentic, running example of a true antique vehicle. I am it’s second owner and have owned it for 9 years.

I am a member of the Mid America Old Time Auto Association (M.O.T.A.A.) located in the Museum of Automobiles on Petit Jean Mountain, the Model A Ford Club of America, the 50th Anniversary Model A Club of Arkansas, the Model A Restorers Club of America and the Dixie Car Club in Benton. In this presentation I am not acting as an agent of any of those named but on behalf of the entire "true Antique Vehicle" owners community.

Antique tags are regulated under Arkansas statute: Code title 27 - Transportation; Subtitle 2 - Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing; Chapter 15 - Registration and Licensing - Special Uses; Sub chapter 22 - Historical or Special Interest Vehicles. With pressure from various constituents, for several years now, the Arkansas State Legislature has presented various bills to revise the Antique Tag licensing regulations. It seems that several of the Representatives and/or Senators have seen vehicles sporting an Antique Tag which they know is not proper. They have seen "Smoke Pots" displaying an Antique tag. They have, also, learned that the Antique Tag costs only a one time fee of $7.00. Some think that is unreasonable and see an opportunity to stuff the States bank account with an enormous amount by raising the fee to something from $25.00 up to $75.00. Others have proposed an annual renewal, reinstating an inspection, and other amendments that are totally unacceptable to the Antique Vehicle community.

The Committee has investigated increasing of the current 25 year age for an antique vehicle to 30 years. They have discussed the problem with the one time assessment and the discrepancy between the actual value and the assessed value but are lost in how to determine the true value. They have looked at using the insurance companies to determine the value by how much a vehicle is insured. There has been talk about bringing back the photo requirement. They want to somehow have the owner show proof of liability insurance on an annual basis. They have even discussed having the owner go into the local tag office annually and show proof of insurance. They have discussed having the owner replace the Antique Tag every so many years so as to verify their address and proof of liability insurance.    One of the proposed fee increases was to support a favorite charity of one of the Representatives. A worthwhile cause, but the wrong way to raise funds.

I have attended joint Arkansas Senate & House Transportation Committee Meetings and monitor their web site for proposed bills. Along with the Mid American Old Time Automobile Association (M.O.T.A.A.) Vice President Raymond Harrell, I have meet with Mr. Roger Duren, head of the O.M.V. I have talked with many Antique vehicle owners around the State to get their ideas.  I have spent many hours preparing my own amendment so as to circumvent another one that may have been presented. On behalf of the "True Antique Vehicle" owners, I have successfully lobbied the Transportation Committee Members for support and rejection of several of the previous amendments. I presented a proposal to M.O.T.A.A. for support which they declined because M.OT.A.A. spans several states in addition to Arkansas. Well, I was sucked into jumping to conclusions as have the Transportation Committee Members and Representatives that presented unnecessary proposals. First of all, it's obvious that many of the Senators and Representatives, as I, had NOT read the current statute and the supporting "Affidavit".

According to paragraph 27-15-2201 (2) (A) "...... a vehicle of age which is essentially unaltered from the original manufacturer's specifications and which, because of its significance, is being collected, preserved, restored, or maintained by a hobbyist as a leisure pursuit." 27-15-2203 (a) states "Any person making application for an antique motor vehicle license plate .... shall transmit to the Office of Motor Vehicle an affidavit signed by the applicant stating that the motor vehicle described in the application is restored to its original specifications as closely as reasonably possible and that the applicant will relinquish the antique motor vehicle license plate in the event that the motor vehicle is altered from its original specifications."   Safety improvements such as hydraulic brakes, seal-beam headlights and seat belts are specifically noted as authorized.

The "Affidavit", ADC-CDC-1948, specifically states 'I understand "original specifications" to mean the same type engine, wheels, exhaust system, tire size, upholstery, exterior body and ornaments, bumpers, wheel or dust covers, dash instruments, springs, front axles or suspension system, rear differential, steering system, electrical system, transmission, interior and exterior paints, cooling systems and accessories as were available for the vehicle at its manufacture date'. This Affidavit must be notarized or signed by a Revenue Agent, also. The applicant swears to the truth when signing.

Let me say, I really like street rods. However, authentic antique vehicles deserve a certain amount of respect. How often do you see an 80 year old pickup truck like mine driving down the street? That deserves respect. One of my friends has a 1913 Model T Ford that looks like it just drove off the show room floor. That deserves respect.  He has a Street Rod, also. A street rod is generally a new car with an old car body or an old car that has been upgraded with many modern parts so as to safely and reliably travel at freeway speeds. That deserves admiration but NOT respect. By properly tagging Street Rods and eliminating them from the Antique tag community, because of the easily recognizable rarity, a true Antique vehicle would receive deserved respect.

Did you know that there is a specialty "Street Rod" tag designed just for them, however, there are many more Street Rods than the 79 tags issued (as of February 26, 2007). If the "Street Rod" owners think that their tag is overpriced then they should lobby their Representative, State Senator and/or the Transportation Committee for changes. They need someone to "Ramrod" the changes and be prepared for a long, hard process. The street rod code is number 27-24-1501. The "Street Rod" owners should think about their swearing to the honesty of the Affidavit they signed - under oath.

Now, to the point. I said there are only a couple of thousand truly "Antique Vehicles" in the state. However the Office of Motor Vehicles (O.M.V.) records show that approximately 85,000 Antique Tags have been issued since 1957 - 10,000 in the past year alone.  The O.M.V. cannot give a count of those that are on running vehicles. The O.M.V. cannot tell you how many are issued to “daily drivers” or “primary vehicles”. How many tags have been removed from a disabled antique vehicle and installed on an old vehicle without transferring the registration? How many tags have been stolen from an antique vehicle and installed on an old vehicle? The O.M.V. cannot give you the current, correct address of many of the owners. The O.M.V. cannot tell you how many they have issued erroneously to “Street Rods”.

A friend of mine applied for a “Street Rod” tag and was told by the O.M.V. Clerk, “Why don’t you get an Antique Tag instead? It will only cost you a one time fee of $7 instead of having to renew every year”. What would you have answered?    Mr. Duren has already told the O.M.V. agents not to "Sell" an Antique tag. The Agents at the O.M.V. offices are not and should not be trained or experienced to examine and/or judge the originality of vehicles and/or components. They work from the information presented by those that are making application for an Antique tag.   This is NOT the fault of the O.M.V. but the honesty of the applicant. The Agents could be more inquisitive with the applicant in discussing the details of the requirements of an Antique vehicle so as to confirm its validity.

How much would the State Treasury increase if all the several thousand street rods were properly tagged? A one time $7 fee vs. (ref: 27-24-1503) a Street Rod tag one-time initial fee of $50 and an annual renewal of $25.  27-15-2203 (b) (2) states "If the office (O.M.V.) determines that the owner of such an antique motor vehicle is in violation of this section, the antique motor vehicle license plate shall be seized by the office and the owner fined one hundred dollars ($100)." At a recent show with 100 street rods, with the exception of one (1), they all had an Antique tag displayed. Better hope that the "office" never attends a car show and checks all those tags!

Overall, it appears that the current Antique Vehicle Tag legislation is satisfactory. It appears that "enforcement" of the current legislation and "Honesty" of the applicants is what is needed. The only item for improvement of the present Code would be some revision that would determine which tags are not in use and the current address of the registered owner. If every person that has an Antique tag would go to their local O.M.V. office and update their information, no additional legislation would be necessary. Any process to make it mandatory to report an address change (if it's not already included somewhere else under the motor vehicle codes) would necessitate undue expense by the State. Bottom line, don't penalize the Antique owners for abuse by the Street Rod community and others.

Copies of the "Code" and "Affidavit" which I have recreated are attached. The "Code" is available on-line at http//www.arkleg.state.ar.us.gov. Copies of an original "Affidavit" can be picked up at any O.M.V. office.

Now some questions regarding the "Code".

(1) How do you license a street rod that was built over 25 years ago?

Answer (by Jerald Burns): If the vehicle was originally built as a production vehicle (let's say a 1932 Ford Model A) and was later modified to a street rod (let us say "essentially altered from the manufacturers original specifications" in 1980) it is a modified vehicle according to the definitions in 27-15-2201 and not eligible for antique tags.

If the vehicle was built (let us say in 1980) by an individual (considered the manufacturer & he completes a proper certificate of origin form) as a kit vehicle (let us say a fiberglass replica of a 1932 Ford), then it would be eligible for antique tags since it is "essentially unaltered" from the original specifications when it was built and is now over 25 years since its date of manufacture. This vehicle may still be a "street rod", but is not altered from it original build specifications.

As a far fetched example, let us say this fiberglass replica 32 Ford "antique qualified street rod" was originally built with a Chevy 283 engine and then later had the engine changed to an original 32 Ford flathead V8 engine (or any engine other than a Chevy 283), it would not be eligible for antique tags because it was not in the original specifications when the vehicle was built in 1980.

This is not how my heart would feel about this example, but that is the interpretation of the statue (what a judge would say about it in court). If this was really fair, I would favor allowing a 25 plus year old street rod conversion (or the old folks term hot rod) antique tags. I know of several owners of 30s & 40s vehicles that have period engines that are (my term here) historical hot rods. The hot rod items are ones that were available in the era when the vehicle was new, but not factory original (such as aluminum finned heads).

Go back & look at 27-15-2202. Registration, par D, 1 & 2. The key words here are "a reproduction or facsimile of an historic or special interest vehicle". If this vehicle was built as an original 1932 Ford, it would use the original serial number issued by Ford. If the car was a replica or facsimile vehicle, it would have a certificate of origin showing who built the vehicle and should not have the Ford issued serial number. I think a builder is allowed to assemble a vehicle from obtainable parts such as the original genuine body parts from a 1932 Ford, but it would be designated a "1932 Ford Replica" or some entirely different name & would not have a Ford issued serial number anywhere on the vehicle.

(2) Who Is "The Office"?

Answer (by Jerald Burns): As far as the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (called the D.M.V. or Department of Motor Vehicles in other states, but not in Arkansas), "The Office" is the office of the administrator of the Arkansas Dept of Finance & Administration. There are other subordinates, but the Director of the Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration is THE REPRESENTATIVE of that organization and is considered "The Office".  There is then no doubt that he is the decision maker & speaks for that office.   Mr. Roger Duren, Administrator, Office of Motor Vehicle, is that person. His Supervisor is Mr. Mike Munns, Assistant Commissioner for Operations. Division of Revenue.

There are other circumstances (other than antique tags being seized) where the license plate is seized and returned to the "Office". Remember seeing those temporary green sticker licenses on someones bumper with a date written with a felt tip pen? This was done by a law enforcement officer when he seized the license plate & it was returned to the Dept of Finance & Administration. The violator still had his day in court and could get his license plate back if found not guilty. See ACA 5-65-106 for seizure pertaining to DUI arrests.

The Key.

The Dept. of Finance & Administration collects the fees and issues permits and licenses, but has absolutely no powers to enforce traffic laws (traffic laws cover all vehicle & drivers licenses). Law enforcement agencies are the only representative of Arkansas government (state level, county level or a municipality) that can enforce Arkansas traffic laws (of which licenses are a part). The court systems have the authority and power to determine that a person brought before it for a potential offense is guilty or not guilty of violating the statutes whereby he or she was issued a license or permit from the Arkansas Dept of Finance & Administration.

Unedited email of 1/15/09 in reply to my questions by Mr. Roger Duren, Administrator, Office of Motor Vehicle

Mr. Beyers,

We rely on law enforcement officials to enforce motor vehicle laws. If we receive a report that an antique tag is on a vehicle that does not qualify, we send a letter requesting that the owner relinquish the tag within a certain date and register with an appropriate tag for the vehicle.  We then follow up with system inquiries to see if the owner has complied and, if not, we ask law enforcement to investigate.

Roger Duren, Administrator
Office of Motor Vehicle
501-682-4661

Proposed actions by the Legislature

NO ACTION IS REQUIRED BY THE LEGISLATURE!

Proposed actions by the Office of Motor Vehicle

The Agents should be more inquisitive with the applicant in discussing the details of the requirements of an Antique vehicle tag so as to confirm its validity. The Agents should make certain the applicant understands the penalties for violation. The "Affidavit" should be updated replacing the "19__" with "20__". Additionally, the Affidavit states "..... a fine of not more than $37.50". Code 27-15-2203 states "..... and the owner fined one hundred dollars ($100)."

Proposed actions by the Antique Vehicle Community

Take photos of vehicles in violation of the Code (at least the license tag and a couple more if possible) and email them to Mr. Duren at roger.duren@state.ar.us. As he states in his reply, a letter will be sent to the owner. It will not take long for the word to get out to the "Street Rodders" that their time in limited and if they are honest at all, they will take the hint and turn in their Antique Tag.

Yes, there a few things that could be done to improve the Code, but let's first get quantity of tags to a reasonable number. M.O.T.A.A. Vice-President Raymond Harrell, an Attorney, has invested much time into logical revisions that will make sense. Those amendments will be presented by him at an appropriate time in the future.

Comments in reply to this memo will be shared with other interested parties. Please respond.

Respectfully,

George
George Beyers

1500 Sharon Road
Benton, AR 72019-6122

Work Phone......(501) 776-0790
Home Phone......(501) 776-1399
George's Cell.....(501) 776-5155
Donna's Cell......(501) 840-2000
Fax...................(501) 776-3986
George's email gbeyers@sbcglobal.net
Donna's email dgbeyers@sbcglobal.net
Home page URL http://www.georgebeyers.com

3/5/07 Email from Mike to Committee

SEMA Legislative Alert: Arkansas Introduces Anti-Hobbyist Historic Vehicles Bill

FYI -- Here's what's happening with the proposed antique tag bill (not ours, it's out the window). Obviously there's a great deal of opposition to it. They're calling it an "anti-hobbyist" bill, and some are mobilizing all the troops they can to meet with the legislators to get it voted down. Basically, they don't want any changes made to the law as it stands.

Mike

From: George Beyers <gbeyers@sbcglobal.net>

Subject: Fw: SEMA Legislative Alert: Arkansas Introduces Anti-Hobbyist Historic Vehicles Bill

We need as many of you to attend this meeting as possible. This bill MUST be stopped.

George

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Edwards Marilyn <edwardsm@arkleg.state.ar.us>
To: George Beyers <gbeyers@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 1:15:29 PM
Subject: RE: SEMA Legislative Alert: Arkansas Introduces Anti-Hobbyist Historic Vehicles Bill

George,

The time will be 9:am March 8th in the dinning area on the lower level of the Capitol

Marilyn E

Subject: Re: SEMA Legislative Alert: Arkansas Introduces Anti-Hobbyist Historic Vehicles Bill

Re: HP 1403 Antique Vehicle Tag Legislation

Link: http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/

Thanks Representaive Edwards,

I'll notify those that may be interested and hope we have good representation at the March 8 meeting. Please, let me know the time and room so I can let them know.

We appreciate your consideration with this legislation.

Regards,

George Beyers

----- Original Message ----
From: Edwards Marilyn <edwardsm@arkleg.state.ar.us>
To: George Beyers <gbeyers@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:33:49 AM
Subject: RE: SEMA Legislative Alert: Arkansas Introduces Anti-Hobbyist Historic Vehicles Bill

George,

I have had all sorts of calls. I have told other people to try to get together with all the other clubs.

March the 8th will be a good time. If I have any of the other names I will send them to you.Looking forward to visiting with you.

THANKS,

Marilyn Edwards

-----Original Message-----
From: George Beyers [mailto:gbeyers@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:19 AM
To: Bob West; Raymond Harrill; Edwards Marilyn
Subject: SEMA Legislative Alert: Arkansas Introduces Anti-Hobbyist Historic Vehicles Bill

Rep Edwards,

What's up with this? Is someone else working on the same legislation? I thought we were going to be involved.

Everyone plan on attending the Committee meeting on March the 8th if you can.

George

Jason Tolleson, jasont@sema.org
SEMA 202/783-6007, ext. 39

URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT

Arkansas Introduces Anti-Hobbyist Historic Vehicles Bill

Legislation (H.B. 1403) that would amend the state’s current law governing historic or special interest vehicles to require that these vehicles be 30 or more years old and pay a $25 registration fee has been introduced in the Arkansas House of Representatives by Rep. Pam Adcock ( adcockp@arkleg.state.ar.us ). The bill is scheduled to be heard in committee on Mar. 8.

We Urge You to Contact Members of the House Committee on Public Transportation (List Below) to OPPOSE H.B. 1403

Under current Arkansas law, historic vehicles are only required to be 25-years old or older.
Under current Arkansas law, historic vehicle owners are only required to pay a $7 registration fee.

DON’T DELAY! Please contact members of the Arkansas Committee on Public Transportation immediately by phone or e-mail to request their opposition to H.B. 1403.

Please e-mail a copy of your letter to stevem@sema.org. Thank you for your assistance.

Arkansas House Committee on Public Transportation

Rep. Robbie Wills, Chair
Business Phone: 501-730-4677
Fax: 501-329-0321
E-mail: willsr@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Frank Glidewell, Vice Chair
Business Phone: 479-646-6300
Fax: 479-452-2978
E-mail: glidewellf@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Lenville Evans
Business Phone: 501-676-6780
Fax: 501-676-2106

Rep. David Wyatt
Business Phone: 870-251-1044
Fax: 870-251-3519
E-mail: wyattd@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Monty Davenport
Business Phone: 870-449-6745

Rep. Otis Davis
Business Phone: 870-792-7003
E-mail: daviso@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Ray Kidd
Business Phone: 870-761-7727
E-mail: kiddr@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Fred Allen
Business Phone: 501-225-4979
Fax: 501-225-4762
E-mail: FredAllen99@comcast.net

Rep. Johnny Hoyt
Business Phone: 501-354-4360
E-mail: hoytj@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Lance Reynolds
Business Phone : 501-589-3000
E-mail: reynoldsl@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Gene Shelby
Business Phone: 501-623-2606
E-mail: shelbyg@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Jim House
Business Phone: 479-443-5883
E-mail: housej@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Johnnie Roebuck
Business Phone: 870-403-4382
Fax: 870-246-6974
E-mail: roebuckj@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Bobby Pierce
Business Phone: 501-888-4390
Fax: 870-942-8737
E-mail: pierceb@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Bryan King
Business Phone: 870-438-6434
E-mail: kingb@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Barry Hyde
Business Phone: 501-371-0255
Fax: 501-371-0020
E-mail: hydeb@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Donna Hutchinson
Business Phone: 479-876-6011
E-mail: hutchinsond@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Larry Cowling
Business Phone: 870-542-7452
Fax: 870-542-7743
E-mail: cowlingl@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Randy Stewart
Business Phone: 870-398-4630
E-mail: stewartr@arkleg.state.ar.us

Rep. Dan Greenberg
Business Phone: 501-821-4808
E-mail: rep.greenberg@gmail.com

==============================
If you do not want to receive legislative information from SEMA, e-mail listserv@sema.org with the words "remove legislative" in the subject line.

If you do not want to receive any e-mails from SEMA, e-mail listserv@sema.org with the word "remove" in the subject line to be removed from our distribution list.

Terms under which this service is provided to you: www.sema.org/disclaimer

SEMA's mailing address: 1575 S. Valley Vista Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Jay Herbert
VCA Site Coordinator
http://www.viperclub.org
mailto:viperjay@iocc.com

This communication and any attachments, is intended for the
addressee(s) named above and may contain confidential and legally
privileged information. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify the sender immediately by replying to this
communication and then deleting it from your system. Thank you.

2/15/07 Email from Mike to Committee

My State Representative who agreed to sponsor the bill to revise the antique plate legislation called today. While checking with other antique car club contacts in the state, she met with a great deal of opposition to changing the status quo. Some were belligerent about it. She asked me to come up with some support for the measure or there was little hope for passage of our proposal. The others are not in favor of the 40-year change from the current 25 years, and are not in favor of upping the charge for the plates. She said any of us are welcome to testify at the hearings on the matter, if we wish.

I told her that all we are trying to do is to find ways to close loopholes through which people are abusing the current legislation and cheating the State out of revenues due for licensing clunkers under the guise of calling them antique cars, which she understands and agrees with. But it looks like an uphill battle against many who are comfortable with the current system. I don't know how to effectively deal with this beyond what I've already done. I'll welcome any ideas and/or suggestions.

Mike