An Associated Press article that was published in newspapers across Pennsylvania last week probably was an eye-opener for many state residents.

That 1,300 vehicle-offense convictions could have "fallen through bureaucratic cracks" at the state Department of Transportation justifies the question: Who wasn't doing their job?

Obviously, there are communication problems between PennDOT and district judges, as well as failure by some district judges to keep up with new legislation affecting how they carry out their responsibilities.

The bottom line is that PennDOT has decided to reinstate many of the driver's licenses it suspended last year for the convictions in question — suspensions of six months to five years for offenses that had occurred up to eight years earlier.

Meanwhile, in the appeals that followed the suspensions, it was determined that district judges had lacked the authority to hear two of the three categories for which the suspensions were issued. Those two categories were cases involving fleeing from or eluding police and leaving the scene of an accident involving a tended vehicle or property.

Suspensions for driving without a required alcohol ignition interlock device will stand because district judges have jurisdiction over such cases.

A 1995 law change took the leaving-the-scene and fleeing-from-police offenses out of the hands of district judges, formerly known as district justices. That year, those violations were changed from summary offenses to misdemeanors, requiring common pleas court judges to handle any guilty pleas.

Obviously, many district judges never got the word, or chose to ignore the change.

But the fact remains that district judges are responsible for understanding the authority of their position.

While it is unclear how many of the 943 drivers in the two affected categories will be getting their driving privileges returned — appeals affect some cases and other driving offenses might be tied to some of the others — the fact that the confused situation occurred at all demands a thorough examination of the problem as well as implementation of safeguards to prevent a recurrence.

Meanwhile, unresolved is the fate of what are being referred to as "bad pleas" — hundreds of guilty pleas accepted by district judges who lacked jurisdiction.

Someone should have noticed that there was a problem while the problem was small. That PennDOT and the courts are now forced to deal with a problem of such scope and embarrassment demands an investigation into what occurred and, if necessary and still possible, disciplinary measures against those who merit such a response.