1. Whether the 14 day demand provision of 60-2610(b) should be better coordinated with the notice provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Act.  Perhaps the "demand" requirement of paragraph (b) should be redefined as a notice to permit a combination of these time requirements.

2. Whether the notice provisions spelled out in paragraph (b) are adequate to bring home the potential consequences to the debtor.

3. Provisions for tendering satisfaction of the claim should be more specifically defined as to when the tender can be made and, perhaps, the amount of the "reasonable attorneys fees" at this stage.

4. The entire discussion raises the issue of what are reasonable attorneys fees in light of the extreme disparity among Shawnee and Sedgwick counties on the one hand and Johnson and Douglas counties on the other.  Should there be statewide uniformity on this issue?

5. Some further thought should be given to the possibility of a requirement that counsel or a creditor consolidate claims on serial or successive checks into one action.

6. Additional thought should be given to the suggestions regarding service of the notice by regular mail because of the "red flag" aspect of restricted mail service.

7. Additional committee input should be solicited regarding the overall question of "conscionability" in the statutory scheme (and in the collection practice) that permits the compounding of a bad check into ten times or more in penalties and fees than the original amount of the check.

8. Should sanctions be written into the statute to prevent the use of this procedure when the check turns out not to meet the worthless check definition, i.e., intent to defraud or in payment of a preexisting debt.

9. Should the statute require the petitioner to include in the petition the amount the defendant may tender as satisfaction of the claim and advise the defendant of when the tender must be made pursuant to 60-2610(c)?