Posts Tagged CCAP

Rep. Marlin Schneider Amends AB-340 (CCAP Bill)

Dec 14

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in AASEW, CCAP, Legislation, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | 10 Comments

On December 2, 2009, Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) made an amendment to AB-340.  Referred to as Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 to 2009 AB 340, this revised bill essentially would create two versions of the CCAP database.  Schneider’s amendment appears to be — based on its timing at least — a partial response to the Apartment Association of SE Wisconsin’s critical response to a memo that Schneider sent to other members of the Wisconsin legislature and staff on November 20, 2009.  The problem with Rep. Schneider’s amendment, if it is indeed a response to the AASEW’s criticisms, is that it ignores everything that the AASEW attempted to explain to him.

The original AB 340 can be read in its entirety at  www.DefeatAB340.org.  This site also contains background information on the sponsors of AB 340, responses from across Wisconsin to Schneider’s bill, and Schneider’s earlier attempts to restrict CCAP and prevent landlords from legally screening rental applicants.

Version #1 

Under the amended AB 340, the first version of CCAP would remain exactly as we now know it.  It would continue to provide data on pending cases and completed cases that were resolved by stipulated dismissal, acquittal, or motion.  It would also continue to provide information as to all original criminal charges filed even if those charges were later reduced or dismissed. 

However, this fully transparent version of CCAP would be restricted to only a “chosen few,” namely:

1.   Justices, judges, magistrates, court commissioners, and other employees of state, federal, or municipal courts and agencies who require access to court documents and records during the course of their employement.

2.   Law enforcement officers.

3.   Attorneys and their employees.

4.   Members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Assoc., the Wisconsin Broadcaster’s Assoc., and any other Wisconsin media organization designated by the director of state courts.

5.   A debt collector licensed under Sec. 218.04, Wis. Stats.

Version #2

The second version of CCAP would be a redacted version (just as was set forth in the original AB 340) and would exclude any and all information about any civil or criminal case that had not yet been resolved by: (1) a finding of guilt, (2) a finding of liability, (3) an order of eviction, or (4) the issuance of a restraining order or injunction.

Under the revised AB 340, a person would still be able to request that the director of state courts remove all CCAP information relating to that individual’s case if it did not result in a finding of guilt, liability, eviction judgment, or TRO/Injunction, or if it was reopened, vacated, set aside or overturned on appeal.  Thus, even the “chosen few” detailed above would still not have access to this information if an affected individual made a request to remove it from CCAP.

The revised AB 340 appears to have eliminated the requirement that all users must register with the Director of State Courts and pay a $10 fee.  However, still intact in the amended bill is the requirement that a person who has been denied employment, housing, or a public accomodation, be informed that said decision was made after reviewing information contained on CCAP.  The intentional failure to comply with this section could result in a $1,000 fine.

The revised AB 340 is not an improvement over its predecessor.  Yes, I guess it does allow a select few to access most of the information currently contained on CCAP but what about those individuals who are not included?  Landlords, employers, moms and dads, and everyone else excluded from accessing the info on the “real CCAP” are still being prevented from using CCAP to obtain information that falls under Wisconsn’s open records law.

I wonder just how much time Rep. Schneider and his staff spent drafting the revised AB 340?  Since  the revised version still ignores Wisconsin’s open records law and still hinders a landlord’s ability to properly – and legally – screen a prospective renter, I hope that they didn’t spend too much time on it because I still don’t think it will pass. 

What are your thoughts about this revised version of AB 340?  Let me know your thoughts by sending a “comment.”

Tags: ,

UPDATE ON AB-340 (CCAP BILL)

Oct 9

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | 3 Comments

As many of you know a public hearing was held on AB340 – the proposed bill by Rep. Marlin Schneider that would restrict who can use CCAP and what information would be contained on CCAP — at the State Capitol in Madison last week.

Several board members from the AASEW (Dave Ohrmundt and Richard Bishop) and the head of Milwaukee RING (Brian Fleming) attended the hearing to make sure that landlords’ voices were heard.  We appreciate you guys taking the time out of your busy schedules to attend.

A fellow landlord-tenant law blogger from the Wausau area (Dr. Rent a/k/a John Fischer) also attended the public hearing and even testified wrote a recent blog post on the bill and the hearing that gives you his views on the proposed bill and what his thoughts are regarding if it will succeed.  Dr. Rent writes a great blog and if you enjoy my blog you should also sign up for his blog.

Arguments were presented both for and against the propsoed legislation.  On a practical level I thought it was very telling the the director of state courts (who under the proposed bill would be in charge of registering CCAP users and monitoring their searches) felt that the cost and time involved would be a huge undertaking.  It might have been a good idea for the bills’ sponsors to have spoken with the director of state courts and attempted to get him on their side prior to the public hearing.

Two recent articles written about the hearing and AB340 in general were published.  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote an article on the hearing and the Racine Journal Times also had a good piece on the proposed legislation.  Columnist, Patrick McIlheran, of the Journal Sentinel also wrote a recent piece on Schneider’s proposed CCAP bill.

The Wisconsin State Journal also published an editorial regarding AB-340.

I was also interviewed for an article by the Wisconsin Law Journal about the proposed CCAP legislation. This article does not focus on how AB340 will affect landlords but rather how it might affect lawyers ability to screen their own clients and related issues.

Tags: , ,

Public Hearing on AB 340 (Proposal to Restrict CCAP Access and Information) to Be Held on October 1, 2009 in Madison

Sep 18

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | No Comments

For those of you following my blog, you are well aware of my thoughts on State Rep. Marlin Schneider’s new legislative proposal to restrict access to and limiting information contained on CCAP (Consolidated Cort Automation Programs).  Schneider’s proposed legislation is referred to as AB (Assembly Bill) 340.

In fact, Patrick McIlheran of the Milwaukee Jornal Sentinel just wrote an article that addressed how AB 340 will hurt landlords.

AB 340 is currently in the Committee on Criminal Justice and that committee has just announced that a public hearing on AB 340 will be held on Thursday, October 1, 2009, at 10:15 am at 328 Northwest of the State Capitol Building in Madison.

If you can attend this hearing please consider doing so.  If you are unable to attend then please be sure and voice your opinion on this proposal to your state representative and/or senator and the members of the Committe on Criminal Justice.

We landlords will be at a great loss if we lose our access to CCAP  or are only able to receive certain information from CCAP.

Tags: ,

WTMJ News Radio Discusses Proposed Legislation That Will Restrict Access To and Limit Information Contained on CCAP on Charlie Sykes Radio Show

Sep 17

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | No Comments

Thursday, September 17, 2009 was quite a good PR day for landlords.  Not only did the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel commentator Pat McIlheran publish a very good article criticizing the state and the city of Milwaukee for not treating  landlords like second class citizens but later that same morning Charlie Sykes spent a good amount of time discussing something near and dear to a landlord’s heart — CCAP

Sykes spent a large portion of his final hour discussing State. Rep. Marlin’s Schneider’s latest attempt to restrict access to CCAP and to limit the information contained on CCAP.

If you would like to listen to or download the podcast of Sykes’ discussion of this topic click here and then click on the entry entitled “Sykes Show part 3 – Thursday 9/17/09″

Tags: , ,

AASEW’s Response to Rep. Schneider’s CCAP Legislation Can Be Found at www.DefeatAB340.org

Jul 20

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in AASEW, CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | 5 Comments

For those of you that have been following my blog, you are well aware that State Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) has introduced yet another bill attempting to restrict the public’s access to CCAP.  This new bill also will remove certain information from even being included on CCAP.  My prior blogs on this topic can be read here, here and here.

The Apartment Association of Southeastern Wisconsin (AASEW), a collection of landlords and rental property managers, are strongly opposed to Schenider’s new bill which is entitled AB 340,  and have decided to do something about it.  The AASEW has created a web page that can be found at www.DefeatAB340.org or by clicking here, which contains links to the actual bill as well as links to your state senators and representative so that you can contact them and convey your displeasure with this bill.

Please visit the AASEW’s web page and consider contacting your elected officials to express your views as to AB 340.  You should also forward the link to anyone and everyone you know that may be affected by this legislation. 

If passed, this bill will affect more than just landlords.  Parents, employers, day care providers and more, will be unable to use CCAP without paying an annual fee and having their CCAP searches recorded by the state.  Additionally, you will be unable to learn whether a person has been charged with a crime, found liable in a civil lawsuit, or had an eviction action filed against them – until after the case has been resolved, which is often months or years after the action was filed.

The bill will also allow a person who has information contained on CCAP but which did not result in a convictions or judgment (even if this was the result of a stipulated dismissal) to remove all reference to that information from CCAP.  The concept of open records will be hurt severly should AB 340 pass.

Please do your part to insure that AB340 fails.

Tags: , , , ,

CCAP LEGISLATION INTRODUCED YESTERDAY

Jul 9

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | 7 Comments

State Rep. Marlin Schneider has introduced his newest piece of legislation yesterday - Assembly Bill 340.   Schneider’s newest bill will once again interfere with a landlord’s ability to properly screen his/her applicants through CCAP.

First, AB-340 will require most users of CCAP to register and pay an annual fee.  Second, It will also require you to inform an applicant if you denied them rental as a result of information you obtained from CCAP and if you fail to do so you can be fined $1,000.  Finally, and what bothers me most, is that no pending cases (criminal or civil) will appear on CCAP until after the case has been concluded.  So if the person that just applied to rent from you is doing so becasue their current landlord recently filed an eviction against them — you will not be able to learn this from CCAP — until it may be too late.  You also may not learn until after you have already accepted them as a tenant, that a recent applicant was just charged with the manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance.

You can read AB-340 in its entirety here.

If you would like to read my earlier blog posts on this topic go here and here.

No matter what you do I hope that you will consider contacting both your state representative and state senator and express your strong opposition to this piece of legislation.

Tags: , ,

CCAP: SCREENING TOOL UNDER ATTACK, AGAIN!

Jun 25

Posted by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. in CCAP, Rep. Marlin Schneider, Screening Tenants | 4 Comments

I have had the opportunity to review the newly proposed legislation, authored by State. Representative Marlin Schneider (Wisconsin Rapids), that will affect landlords’ use of CCAP when screening rental applicants.  This legislation has not yet been officially introduced so there is no link to it available on the web.  Currently Rep. Schneider is sending it around attempting to find others who are willing to co-sponsor it with him.

First, the bill would require that no information can be added to CCAP until after there is a finding of guilt in a criminal matter, finding of liability in a civil matter, an order for eviction in an eviction action, or the issuance of a restraining order or injunction.

If this legislation becomes law, landlords will be put at a huge disadvantage during the screening process. If the applicant is currently being evicted by his/her landlord that information would not be displayed on CCAP. I personally feel that th most important piece of information that I want to know about somebody that is applying to rent from me is if they are currently being evicted. The time that it takes to obtain a judgment of eviction often takes up to 1 month or more – as you need to wait for the 5 or 14 day notice to expire, then it takes approximately 2 weeks before you can get into court for the initial appearance, and then if the tenant contests the eviction the trial could be scheduled out as far as 1 week from the date of the initial appearance – and that does not even account for the court time (or backlog) to enter the information into CCAP.

The same would apply to collection lawsuits. If the tenant is currently being sued by his/her landlord for damage to the rental property (not part of an eviction action) or any other person or business that is owed money by the tenant, this information would not show up on CCAP until after a judgment was rendered. Collection lawsuits (even in the small claims division) can easily take 6 months or more to come to a conclusion.

Most of us review an application, complete a background search, and make a decision to rent to an applicant in a few days to 1 week. In fact, the regulations regarding earnest money (ATCP 134.05) require a landlord to make that decision by the end of the 3rd business day or else they must return the earnest money to the applicant. So if this law is passed landlords will not be privy to important information that is needed in order to make an intelligent decision as to whether an applicant should become a tenant. Seeing no current eviction or lawsuits pending against the applicant, a landlord may accept the applicant and enter into a rental agreement with them only to find out a few weeks or months later that their new tenant was evicted or sued by their prior landlord.

Second, the new bill also will require landlords to pay an annual fee of $10 to use CCAP. This fee would not be charged to judges, attorneys, court personnel, law enforcement personnel, and journalists. Even more troublesome however is that the Director of State Courts would also be required to register all users of CCAP and also record any and all searches that they perform using CCAP. So there would be a record of what searches you performed on CCAP that could possibly be used against you if it was determined that you discriminated against an applicant (see the paragraph below for such a scenario).

Third, this bill would also require that any landlord that uses CCAP as part of their background search on an applicant, must tell the applicant, if their application is denied, that CCAP was used in part in making the decision to deny them. Failure to inform the applicant of this may cause the landlord to be fined $1,000. Remember the requirement that the searches of all CCAP users be recorded that I mentioned in the prior paragraph? Maybe that same search record could be used against you if you did not advise the applicant that you used CCAP as part of your background search prior to denying them. If this is a possibility then landlords will need to document in writing that they did advise the applicant that they used CCAP to vet them or else risk the $1,000 fine.

Finally, under the bill, any person that currently has information isted on CCAP that didn’t result in a finding of guilt in a criminal matter, liability in a civil matter, an order for eviction, or the issuance of a restraining order of injunction, can request that the information be removed from CCAP. So under this law, past information that was available on CCAP can now disappear.

Essentially, this will allow any tenant that was sued for eviction in the past but who had his/her eviction dismissed pursuant to a stipulation (which are often forced upon landlords in Milwaukee County) can be removed from CCAP. Oftentimes, a landlord will agree to dismiss an eviction against a tenant in exchange for the tenant agreeing to vacate the property by a date certain. Landlords do this because it will avoid the need for an eviction trial as well as the need to take additional time off of work or pay additional fees to a lawyer for a trial. It is understandable why a landlord may agree to a stipulated dismissal but if this new legislation is passed documentation showing that an eviction was even filed may be removed from CCAP. Landlords will need to seriously need to reconsider entering into stipulated dismissals because by doing so they will be hurting other landlords who may inadvertently rent individuals that were sued for eviction but for which no record exists on CCAP.

Tags: