CORRECTIONLast week, in our story
"AAIA,
AASP and MEA Leave the NASTF Planning Group," we incorrectly
stated that the next meeting of the National
Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) would be held April 1, 2006.The correct date of the meeting is
April
4, 2006. The meeting will be held at the
Courtyard Marriott,
333 E. Jefferson Ave, Detroit, MI, at 1 p.m., in conjunction with the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) World Congress.
We apologize for the error and any
confusion that resulted from it.RIGHT TO REPAIRAAIA, AASP and MEA Leave the NASTF Planning Group CHICAGO, IL (March 8, 2006) - Sometimes the truth has three sides. For several months, the process to formalize the National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) has been underway, by means of a committee named the NASTF Planning Group. Chaired by Becky Fedik, a facilitator from the Society of Engineers (SAE), the group included parties representing a wide range of industry stakeholders and positions - both those favoring an industry solution, as well as those favoring a legislated one. The intent was to build a better NASTF, whichever way proposed legislation went. Key action items were laid out and discussed, time was allowed for representatives to allow their home association time to consider and provide direction, culminating in a renewed discussion and a consensus decision. Just prior to the group's March 1 meeting, wherein the important issues of governance and enforcement were on the agenda, three associations pulled out of the meeting. Whether the three associations will return to another NASTF Planning Group meeting or not remains uncertain. They left the door open though. The NASTF Planning Group has also left the door open for them to return, and in addition, assigned members present on March 1 to brief the three absentees afterwards. When asked, Dave Scaler, director of the Mechanics Education Association (MEA) said that returning or not was currently being discussed.
Misrepresentation or misunderstanding? The Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA), Alliance of Automotive Service Providers (AASP) and the MEA jointly decided to not attend the March 1 meeting. They sent a letter, dated Feb. 24, to John Cabaniss, who was representing the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) at the scheduled meeting. Within the letter, the three associations - all in favor of a proposed Right to Repair legislation - cited a number of concerns. They allege that Cabaniss initiated a discussion with congressional staff by stating, "It is has come to our attention that our participation in the NASTF formalization process has been raised by you to congressional staff as a reason not to move forward with consideration of the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 2005 (H.R. 2048)." The authors claimed their position on the NASTF discussions and support for Right to Repair legislation were misrepresented by this alleged action. Furthermore, they argue that raising the discussion with congressional staff broke a pledge by all of those participants at earlier meetings of NASTF that the activities relating to the formation of NASTF would be kept separate from the lobbying activities currently occurring on Capitol Hill. In the letter, they wrote, "At this point, we do not believe that the efforts being undertaken as part of formalizing NASTF will resolve our information and tool issues and therefore continue to strongly support passage of Right to Repair legislation." Pat Andersen, president of AASP said, "There was confusion caused by the things said to congressional staff in regards to our position on Right to Repair [legislation]." He explained that the withdrawal from the NASTF Planning Group meeting was intended to end the confusion and spur Congress to move forward with legislation. He added, "I hope Congress sees Right to Repair as something that needs to be acted on promptly." Cabaniss, AIAM director, Environment and Energy, was quick to reply to the three authors, in writing on Feb. 27. He states he did not raise any discussion as alleged: "I would never try to state your or anyone else's position on any matter to anyone, but especially not to congressional staff, unless I was authorized to do so." Cabaniss noted that congressional staff meets with key stakeholders, on either side of the proposed bill, and are not so na?ve to mix up any organization's participation in the NASTF Planning Group, with its position on proposed legislation. He wrote in his reply, "Several other opponents of H.R. 2048 and I met with House Energy and Commerce Committee staff on Feb. 15, 2006, as we have on other occasions, to follow [up] the status of the legislation. The committee staff was aware of the January 23 to 24, 2006 NASTF Planning Group meeting and asked several related questions. They noted from the meeting summary that you three were on the NASTF Planning Group, and that the planning group had agreed on the composition of an NASTF governing board. The committee staff asked if you three supported the decision on the NASTF governing board. I responded that all decisions made at the January 23 to 24 meeting were made on a 'consensus' basis, as defined at the meeting. Period. There was no characterization one way or another made anyone present, including myself, about how this decision affected your positions on H.R. 2048."
Making sense of a maze Trying to find the truth from a "he said - she said" situation is difficult. In speaking with the principals involved, one thing became apparent: The only way to substantiate the validity of either the allegations or the response was to know which congressional staff members were approached and then verify what was said. To that end, the authors of both letters were contacted and each was asked to provide names of the congressional staff involved. On one hand, those making the allegations did not provide any names. Andersen of AASP said, ""I just don't know which Congressional staff were approached." Dave Scaler, MEA director replied, "I can't do that because I'm not quite sure it's appropriate." Aaron Lowe, AAIA vice president said he wouldn't supply the names. The question was asked of another
pro-legislation organization, but its spokesperson also said the group didn't
know who was contacted. On the other hand, Cabaniss replied with two names. Another stakeholder present at the Feb. 15 meeting provided another. None of the congressional contacts, including one in legislation-sponsor Representative Joe Barton's (R-TX) office, would confirm the allegations made by AAIA, AASP and MEA. Another contact committed to locating and sending a copy of the transcript of the Feb. 15 House Committee Energy and Commerce meeting. The next NASTF meeting is scheduled for
April 4 at the Courtyard Marriott in Detroit, in conjunction with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) World Congress. It is a full, open meeting of all NASTF members and committees. At press time, H.R. 2048 still awaits action by Congress. We will continue to report on any developments, as they occur.
(Sources: AAIA, AASP, MEA, AIAM, Congress) 
