Ohio House Bill 292 Amendment

Dear Fellow Payroll Professional:

THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION!

As you are aware, in March of 1999, the Ohio Legislature voted in a new consumer garnishment law, Senate Bill 170, that has burdened the employer substantially. The legislature is now considering another measure that has some good provisions, but overall would burden us even more.

Background

The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering a measure, House Bill 292, that would make some changes to the way we process garnishments. The proposed changes are as follows:

GOOD STUFF

The maximum amount to withhold each pay period would be simply 25% of disposable earnings

Employers would have the option of remitting funds electronically, if the court offers the option

BAD STUFF

Each payment would be sent to the judgment creditor or judgment creditor's attorney for each garnishment, instead of to the court that issued the garnishment. For some employers, this change would mean issuing an additional 30 checks per pay period for what is now sent to only one municipal court. (This is really bad!)

To combat the "bad stuff," the employer sector* has convinced Senator Cupp to offer an amendment to House Bill 292, which will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 8. The amendment would remove the requirement that employers send each garnishment payment to the separate judgment creditor or judgment creditor's attorney. This would allow the employer sector to continue to process garnishments under the current, more efficient method.

Take Action Now

This is where we need your help. With the assistance of Sam Grossmann (a lobbyist for the Timken Corporation) and Scott Mezistrano (Washington Office, APA), we have composed a letter that we would like you to send to the Senators on the Judiciary Committee.

You can download the letter as a Microsoft Word or "Rich Text Format" document by clicking on the links below. Please modify the letter with some personal remarks or at least just fill in the blanks. Then print it on your letterhead and fax it to the appropriate parties listed below.

Microsoft Word 6.0 / 95 Format (DOC)

Rich Text Format (RTF)

The text of the letter is also at the end of this Web page. You can "cut and paste" the letter into a new email message and send it that way. Either way will help all of us. This bill is to go for a vote on December 8 (That's next week!!!) so please send this off as soon as possible.

Here is the list of Senators with their contact information. Send to:

the Senator most closely representing your area,

Senator Latta, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and

Senator Cupp, who we believe will be proposing this amendment to the full Judiciary Committee.

Senator Latta
Bowling Green and northwest Ohio - Toledo/(ALL)
cfoster@mailr.sen.state.oh.us
Fax: (614)466-7667

Senator Blessing Cincinnati - (Greater Cincinnati)
dreinhar@mailr.sen.state.oh.us
Fax: (614)466-7662

Senator Cupp Lima - Miami Valley/ ALL
blayton@mailr.sen.state.oh.us
Fax: (614) 644-5735

Senator Horn Dayton - Miami Valley
chorn@mailr.sen.state.oh.us
(614)466- 7018

Senator Johnson Columbus, Westerville - Columbus Area
ldarding@mailr.sen.state.oh.us
Fax:(614)644-5735

* The "employer sector" mentioned above was represented by:

Greg Thrush - Timken Manufacturing

Doris Greenwell -APA/Nationwide Insurance

Robert Stepp - Bank One

NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businesses)

OMA (Ohio Manufacturing Association

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce

Thank you,

Doris W. Greenwell, CPP
Government Affairs Task Force, American Payroll Association
President, Columbus Area Chapter, APA

** BODY OF LETTER **

Dear Senator______________:

I am writing to urge your support and vote for an amendment to House Bill 292 (Willamowski), which will be presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 8.

HB 292 makes some changes to the process by which businesses withhold funds from employees' pay for creditor garnishments and remit those funds. Some of those changes are a welcome streamlining of an employer's responsibilities, but one change adds an extreme amount of costly burden. The amendment that will be presented on December 8 would remove this provision.

Specifically, the burdensome provision contained in the current version of HB 292 would require that for each creditor garnishment order, the garnishee (employer) make payment directly to the judgment creditor or the judgment creditor's attorney. This would bypass and eliminate the current process of the garnishee disbursing payment through the appropriate court that issued the order.

The change in making payments to either the judgment creditor or the judgment creditor's attorney would add a serious burden to both large and small employers. Currently, employers have the ability to process one check to a court that issued multiple employee garnishments. Under the proposed change, the number of checks issued each pay would multiply by the number of garnishments sent to each creditor or creditor's attorney. The average cost to an employer is $75.00 for the initial processing of a garnishment and $50 for each subsequent payment. By requiring payments to each creditor, the processing cost would be multiplied by the number of creditors.

Secondly, garnishment information is currently provided to the appropriate court and the employee only. Direct payment to a judgment creditor or judgment creditor's attorney would add a third distribution of information. The third level of distribution would result in a severe multiplication in the number of telephone calls related to creditor garnishments that a business has to receive, research, and answer. Instead of just dealing with employees and courts, employers would now have to respond to each creditor or its attorney. Employers are not in the business of conversing with judgment creditor's attorneys. From an administrative and sound public policy perspective this responsibility is most appropriate for the court system.

Again, I ask that, when HB 292 is presented to you in the Judiciary Committee on December 8, you please support the amendment that gives the employer the right to continue to send payment only to the court and not the to judgment creditor or judgment creditor's attorney.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please contact me at _________ if I can answer any questions on this important issue.

Respectfully,