Re: Law Suit in NJ - An Inconvenient Truth - CAA Protects Unlicensed Bay Alarm Company

[Nick Lawrence <nlaw@xxxxxxx>]

Here is one big reason more companies don't join...

Group:
This is how the California Alarm Association (CAA), a state chapter of
the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association (NBFAA), deals swiftly
with unlicensed alarm companies like Bay Alarm Company of Pacheco CA.
Get out the large size Vaseline and whitewash they do.


 > Mr. Jon Sargent, President
 > California Alarm Association
 >
 > September 2006
 >
 > RE: An Inconvenient Truth.
 >
 > "It is a 'Good Old Boys Club'". That's the perception behind one of
the three top reasons many alarm companies elect not to participate in
association affairs, opines California Alarm Association (CAA) Director
and Grievance Committee Chairman Mr. George DeMarco in "Trade
Associations: What's In It For Me?", his Page 1 article in the August
2006 CAA publication "THE MIRROR".
 >
 > The undersigned represents CAA regular member 911 Inc, provider of
discount-price 911ALARM ® alarm monitoring services, and therefore,
definitely not one of Mr. DeMarco's "good old boys".  On behalf of the
many other non-good-old-boy members of the CAA, the undersigned seeks
freedom from cronyism, fair and equal treatment, observance of consumer
protection laws, and appropriate action taken against scofflaws.
 >
 > Background:
 > In July 2005, 14 months ago, 911 Inc filed a formal grievance with
the CAA, alleging that member Bay Alarm Company did not meet the minimum
requirements for regular membership in, and that its representatives
therefore could not be nominated for or hold any elected position
within, the CAA. The grievance included sufficient public record
documentation to prove the truth of the allegations.
 >
 > These licenses are required to lawfully operate in California:
 >
 >     (i)  For a burglar alarm company, an Alarm Company Operator (ACO)
license issued by the CA Bureau of Security and Investigative Services
(BSIS or Bureau), and
 >     (ii)  For a fire alarm company, a Contractors license in
Classification C10 (Electrical), issued by the CA Contractors State
License Board (CSLB).
 >
 > CAA regular member Bay Alarm Company, incorporated on 10-20-2000, did
not then hold either of these required licenses, and parallel complaints
were filed by the undersigned with the BSIS and with the CSLB licensing
agencies.
 >
 > The CAA Bylaws requirements for regular membership include:
 >
 >     (i)  Must provide electronic security systems for the general
public, and
 >     (ii)  Have valid California state licenses to operate in those
segments of the electronic security industry as the member may be operating.
 >
 > The CAA Code of Ethics, referenced herein, is printed below1.
 >
 > So far the CAA leadership, and Mr. DeMarco and his other CAA
grievance committee members, have chosen to cover their eyes and to
ignore the inconvenient truth of the allegations.  In short, the CAA
"good old boys club" has so far whitewashed and effectively thwarted any
honest inquiry into these now proven allegations and has allowed an
unlicensed alarm company to remain unapologetic amongst us.
 >
 > This whitewash has caused, and continues to cause, serious damage to
the CAA, as present and prospective members, and the law enforcement and
media communities, now see how politics, cronyism, and Mr. DeMarco's
"good old boys" appear more interested in stifling honest discussion of
inconvenient truths, protecting favored members, and ensuring that their
hand-picked friends remain in control of the CAA Board.  At a time when
our industry is faced with huge issues (such as non-response, verified
response, IP, etc) it is vitally important we show the world we can
self-police (as BSIS Chief Johnson stated) our membership as well.
 >
 > For its part, Bay Alarm Company, with its impressive client list,
widespread operations, professional staff, multi-generational family
management and huge profits, is by many measures a vast success.  But
Bay Alarm Company and its representatives to the CAA, as yet, have
failed to step forward, as founder Everett Westphal surely would have
done, and as its "Core Values" (see below) require, and admitted their
failure to comply with the CAA Bylaws, and their violations of the CAA
Code of Ethics and CA license law, all as set forth below, and to
apologize for those failures to the CAA and its regular membership.
This call to them to do so now is hereby made.
 >
 > Acting on the very same documents provided to you and the CAA, the
BSIS promptly took action, finding that Bay Alarm Company was an
unlicensed burglar alarm company operator.  In February, 2006, I hand
delivered to you a copy of a letter2 to the undersigned from Chief
Johnson of the CA Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS).
  That letter confirms that Bay Alarm Company, incorporated on
10-20-2000, did not have an ACO license until ACO license number 28 was
issued to it over five years later on 12-28-2005 (see link #1 below).
ACO license number 28 had been previously held by Balco Holdings Inc
(previously named Bay Alarm Company) from 1979 until 12-28-2005 when it
abandoned that name and license.  That letter is incorporated herein.
 >
 > Incredibly, you told me that letter was not sufficient to convince
you that Bay Alarm Company had not been properly licensed, you asked me
to provide you with still more proof, and said that only then you would
take action.
 >
 > However, and acting on those very same documents, the CSLB also took
action, finding that Bay Alarm Company was an unlicensed fire alarm
contractor. And, on 6-28-2006, Bay Alarm Company finally obtained the
required fire alarm license when the CSLB issued to it new C10 license
#880138 (see link #4 below).
 >
 >
 > Here are newly discovered facts, and the "more proof" you requested:
 >
 >     1.  This link confirms the date Bay Alarm Company first held an
ACO license was 12-28-2005:
 >
http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=28&P_LTE_ID=632
 >
 >     2.  This link shows that Bay Alarm Company came into existence on
10-20-2000:
 >     http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2266301
 >
 >     3.  This link shows Balco Holdings Inc came into existence in 1960:
 >     http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C0393236
 >
 >     4.  This link shows that new C10 fire alarm license 880138 was
issued to corporation Bay Alarm Company on 6-28-06:
 >     http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=880138
 >
 >     5.  This link shows every officer, all 4 of whom are named
'Westphal', of Bay Alarm Company, holder of C10 fire alarm license 880138:
 >     http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/Personnel+List.asp?LicNum=880138
 >
 >     6.  This link shows that C10 fire alarm license 261003 is issued
to, and has been held by, Balco Holdings Inc since 1970:
 >     http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=261003
 >
 > You now have complete proof that CAA member Bay Alarm Company, and
its representatives to the CAA, have not met the CAA's minimum
requirements for regular membership in, or to be nominated for or to
hold office within, the CAA from 2000 until at least 6-28-2006.
 >
 > Thus, it is now fully revealed, and is a matter of public record,
that Bay Alarm Company was not fully licensed to engage in the burglar
and fire alarm business in California until three months ago on 6-28-2006.
 >
 > Based upon the newly public record of these matters, including those
above, and the documents provided to you and the CAA previously, which
are incorporated herein, the prior grievances are herewith amended to
include this additional information and allegations, together with new
grievances herewith filed with the CAA by CAA regular member in good
standing 911 Inc, alleging violations of the CAA Bylaws and the CAA Code
of Ethics.
 >
 > I appeal to you Jon, as an honest man, and as representative of a
properly licensed regular member, to ensure that these matters and
grievances now receive a prompt, full, public, and honest hearing by
unbiased members.
 >
 > Quick Recap:
 > Bay Alarm Company, CAA regular member, incorporated on 10-20-2000,
and engaging in the burglar and fire alarm business, held these licenses:
 >
 >     *   Beginning on 10-20-2000, held neither required license.
 >     *   >From 12-28-2005 until 6-28-2006, held an ACO license, but
not a C10 license.
 >     *   >From 6-28-2006 until present, holds both of the required
licenses.
 >
 > Therefore, from 10-20-2000 until at least 6-28-2006, Bay Alarm
Company did not meet the minimum requirements for regular membership in
the CAA.  Further, and for that reason, its representatives did not meet
the minimum requirements to be nominated for, or to hold, elected office
in the CAA as of December 2004.
 >
 > Balco Holdings Inc, a "Holding Company", although not engaging in the
alarm business for over 5 years, did hold these licenses:
 >
 >     *   Beginning in the 1970's until 12-28-2005, held both ACO and
C10 licenses.
 >     *   >From 12-28-2005 until 6-28-2006, held a C10 license, but not
an ACO license.
 >     *   >From 6-28-2006 until present, does not hold an ACO license.
 >
 > Therefore Balco Holdings Inc, a "holding company" since 2000, does
not meet the minimum requirements for regular membership in the CAA.
 >
 >
 > Please accept (i) these amendments to the prior grievance, and (ii)
these new grievances, against Bay Alarm Company, incorporated
10-20-2000, and its representatives:
 > 1.  Bay Alarm Company, not possessing the ACO and C10 licenses
required to engage in the burglar alarm & fire alarm business, did not
meet the minimum requirements set forth by the CAA Bylaws for regular
membership until at least 6-28-2006. The requirements for regular
membership in the CAA include that the regular member must be properly
licensed for the burglar or fire alarm work it performs.  Bay Alarm
Company did not possess both required licenses until 6-28-2006.
 >
 > 2.  Bay Alarm Company has consistently, from 2000 until the present,
advertised that it is a regular member, and by inference that it meets
the minimum requirements for such membership, of the CAA and the
National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association (NBFAA), without disclosing
that it did not meet the minimum requirements for regular membership.
Bay Alarm Company's acts constitute an unfair business practice as
defined by California Business and Professions Code §17,200, and a
violation of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 3.  Bay Alarm Company's officer and representative Mr. Matt Westphal,
representing an unlicensed burglar/fire alarm company, did not meet the
minimum requirements to be nominated for elective office in the CAA
prior to 6-28-2006. By seeking and holding (since December 2004) an
elected position (CAA Northern Vice President and CAA Director) he is
not eligible for, his actions have prevented, and still prevent, other
qualified candidates representing properly licensed alarm companies from
holding that office, and constitute violations of the CAA Bylaws and the
CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 4.  Bay Alarm Company falsely advertised, from 2000 until at least
6-28-2006, that it then held the required fire alarm license, falsely
advertising that it held license C10-261003. This created unfair
competition in the marketplace to the detriment of all other regular
members of the CAA within the areas in which Bay Alarm Company operated.
This constitutes a violation of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 5.  Bay Alarm Company falsely advertised, from 2000 until 12-28-2005,
that it then held the required burglar alarm license, falsely
advertising that it held license ACO-28. This created unfair competition
to the detriment of all other regular members of the CAA within the
areas in which Bay Alarm Company operated. This constitutes a violation
of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 6.  Bay Alarm Company's representative Mr. George Mathew, Sales
Manager, on 9-29-2005, in the course of his successful campaign for the
Vice-Presidency of CAA local Sacramento Area Alarm Association (SAAA),
falsely represented that his employer Bay Alarm Company was properly
licensed. His email that date to the undersigned states: "Our
Contractors Lic number is 261003 & our ACO number is 28."  This false
statement constitutes a violation of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 7.  Bay Alarm Company's representative Mr. George Mathew,
representing an unlicensed burglar and fire alarm company, did not meet
the minimum requirements to be a member of the CAA. By seeking and
holding an elected position and a seat on the SAAA Board of Directors he
is not eligible for, his actions have prevented, and still prevent,
other qualified candidates representing properly licensed alarm
companies from seeking or holding that office, and constitute violations
of the CAA Bylaws and the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 8.  Bay Alarm Company engaged in the burglar alarm business from 2000
until 12-28-2005 without having the required ACO license, violations of
CA law and of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 9.  Bay Alarm Company engaged in the fire alarm business from 2000
until 6-28-2006 without having the required C10 license, violations of
CA law and of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 10.  Bay Alarm Company continued to engage in the fire alarm business
from 12-28-2005 until 6-28-2006, during which period it must have known
such activities were unlawful, without the required C10 fire alarm
license, violations of CA law and of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 11.  Bay Alarm Company's representatives to the CAA violated the CAA
Code of Ethics #3 by operating a fire alarm business, prior to
6-28-2006, without the required C10 fire alarm license.
 >
 > 12.  Bay Alarm Company's representatives to the CAA violated the CAA
Code of Ethics #3 by operating a burglar alarm business, prior to
12-28-2005, without the required ACO burglar alarm license.
 >
 > 13.  Bay Alarm Company and its representatives violated the CAA Code
of Ethics #3 by falsely advertising, prior to 6-28-2006, that Bay Alarm
Company held the required C10 license, by advertising Bay Alarm Company
then held license C10-261003.
 >
 > 14.  Bay Alarm Company and its representatives continued to violate
the CAA Code of Ethics #3 by falsely advertising, between 12-28-2005 and
6-28-2006, during which period it must have known such advertising was
false, that Bay Alarm Company held the required C10 license, by
advertising Bay Alarm Company then held license C10-261003.
 >
 > 15.  Bay Alarm Company and its representatives violated the CAA Code
of Ethics #3 by falsely advertising, prior to 12-28-2005, that Bay Alarm
Company held the required ACO license, by advertising Bay Alarm Company
then held license ACO-28.
 >
 > 16.  Bay Alarm Company and its representatives violated the CAA Code
of Ethics #3 by falsely representing to the CAA, from 10-20-2000 until
12-28-2005, that Bay Alarm Company held the ACO license required for
regular membership.
 >
 > 17.  Bay Alarm Company and its representatives violated the CAA Code
of Ethics #3 by falsely representing to the CAA, from 10-20-2000 until
6-28-2006, that Bay Alarm Company held the C10 license required for
regular membership.
 >
 > 18.  Bay Alarm Company, over the past five years, while unlicensed,
has caused numerous lawsuits to be filed in CA to collect monies claimed
due pursuant to Bay Alarm Company's subscriber contracts, which, due to
Bay Alarm Company being an unlicensed burglar/fire alarm contractor, are
unenforceable via the courts, and judgments unobtainable and
unenforceable.  In fact, virtually every one of its subscriber contracts
are thus unenforceable, but, nevertheless, lawsuits were brought against
subscribers Paul Maciel3 and Robert Smith4, and numerous others.
Because the privilege of using the courts to bring or defend such suits
belongs solely to properly licensed contractors, Bay Alarm Company's
actions are inconsistent with the CA Business and Professions Code
(§7592.5 & §7031a), constitute an unfair business practice (B&P
§17,200), unjustly enriches them, and are therefore a violation of the
CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 19.  Bay Alarm Company and its representatives violated the CAA Code
of Ethics #3 by failing to advise the CAA, at anytime between 12-28-2005
and 6-28-2006, during which period they must have known their silence
was intentionally misleading and damaging to the well-being of the CAA,
that Bay Alarm Company did not hold the C10 license required for regular
membership.
 >
 > 20.  Bay Alarm Company and its representatives continued to violate
the CAA Code of Ethics #3, during the period 12-28-2005 and 6-28-2006,
during which period they must have known such advertising was false, by
continuing to engage in the fire alarm business and advertising that Bay
Alarm Company then held license C10-261003.
 >
 > 21.  Bay Alarm Company, by being an unlicensed alarm company for over
5 years, and its representatives, by concealing and failing to admit its
unlicensed status, have brought great shame, discredit, and disgrace to
the CAA, violations of the CAA Code of Ethics #1, #2 and #3.
 >
 > 22.  Bay Alarm Company's press releases5 state that Mr. Shane Clary,
a fire alarm expert, and an employee of Bay Alarm Company, and its
representative to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), is an
officer, namely Vice President, of Bay Alarm Company.  However,  public
records filed with the CSLB (see link #5 above) in connection with its
C10 fire alarm license, reveal that Mr. Clary is neither an officer, nor
a Vice President, of Bay Alarm Company.  Either the license filings are
true, OR the press releases are true, but not both.  Bay Alarm Company
filed untrue statements in connection with its new C10 license, OR its
press releases are untrue.  In either event, Bay Alarm Company has made
false representations to the public and/or to the alarm community, and
violated the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 >
 > And, although it is not a member of the CAA, please accept these
grievances #3 thru #7 against Balco Holdings Inc, incorporated in 1960,
and its representatives:
 > 1.  Balco Holdings Inc did not meet the minimum requirements set
forth by the CAA Bylaws for regular membership from and after 2000,
because it is a "Holding Company" and is not engaged in the alarm
business, a requirement for regular membership in the CAA.
 >
 > 2.  Balco Holdings Inc's representatives, representing a company not
eligible for membership, did not themselves meet the minimum
requirements to be nominated for, or to hold, elective office in the CAA
from and after 2000.
 >
 > 3.  Balco Holdings Inc "loaned" its license numbers ACO-28 and
C10-261003 to unlicensed Bay Alarm Company from 2000 until 12-28-2005,
violations of CA law and of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 4.  Balco Holdings Inc continued to "loan" its license number
C10-261003 to unlicensed Bay Alarm Company from 12-28-2005 until at
least 6-28-2006, during which period it must have known such activity
was improper, violations of CA law and of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 5.  Balco Holdings Inc "loaned" its license numbers ACO-28 and
C10-261003 to unlicensed Bay Alarm Company from 2000 until 12-28-2005,
thereby aiding and abetting an unlicensed burglar and fire alarm
company, violations of CA law and of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 6.  Balco Holdings Inc continued to "loan" its license number
C10-261003 to unlicensed Bay Alarm Company from 12-28-2005 until at
least 6-28-2006, during which period it must have known such activity
was improper, thereby aiding and abetting an unlicensed fire alarm
company, violations of CA law and of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 > 7.  Balco Holdings Inc, by being unqualified for membership in the
CAA for over 5 years, and its representatives, by concealing and failing
to admit this status, have brought great shame, discredit, and disgrace
to the CAA, a violation of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.
 >
 >
 > Summary:
 > Each of the above many allegations have been substantiated by the
public record, constitute violations of the CAA Bylaws and/or the CAA
Code of Ethics, and a hearing by the CAA Grievance Committee is sought.
 >
 > At that hearing, the following specific remedies will be sought:
 >
 >     * That the CAA find, and its records made to confirm and ratify,
the truth of each of the allegations above.
 >     * That Bay Alarm Company's representatives, who hold or held
positions on the CAA Board of Directors from or after 2000, be
retroactively stripped of those titles and positions, and any later
entitlements they would enjoy had they been qualified to hold such
positions.
 >
 > Bay Alarm Company states (at http://bayalarm.com/careers_culture.php)
these as among its "Core Values":
 >     Reputation: It is our desire to be judged on the merits of our
words and actions both personally and professionally.
 >     Integrity and Honesty: We do not make excuses or rationalize our
failures.
 > With these "Core Values" in mind, this grievance lastly seeks, as
stated above, that Bay Alarm Company, Balco Holdings Inc, and their
officers and representatives to the CAA, publicly admit the inconvenient
truth of the above allegations.
 >
 > Regards,
 >
 > Nick Lawrence
 > President,
 > 911 Inc.
 >
 >
 > ***
 > Footnotes:
 > 1.  CAA "CODE OF ETHICS"
 >
 >     1. To promote the highest standards of performance and professional
 >     conduct in the electronic security industry.
 >     2. To foster objectives founded on principles of justice and
integrity that
 >     are beneficial to all persons involved in the electronic security
industry and
 >     the general public.
 >     3. To deal honestly, fairly, and to be guided by a spirit of
justice and
 >     honor in all matters.
 >     4. To provide mutual aid to members and to disseminate information
 >     vital to the electronic security industry.
 >     5. To encourage and support sound legislation affecting the
electronic
 >     security industry.
 >
 >
 >
 > 2.  The letter from BSIS Chief Johnson is dated 12-29-2005 and
states, in pertinent part:
 >
 >     "After a review of the documents you provided... the Bureau
mailed a letter to Bay Alarm Company informing  them of our findings...
and requested a response and acknowledgment to the accuracy of our
findings."
 >
 >     Subsequently, "Bay Alarm Company submitted a new application and
appropriate fees for an Alarm Company Operator License... " and "Balco
Holdings Inc provided the Bureau a letter abandoning use of the name
'Bay Alarm Company'..." and "...the license for [Balco Holdings Inc] was
abandoned with a new license issued the same date in December 2005,
bearing the name of Bay Alarm Company and the License number of ACO-28.".
 >
 >     ..."I wish to thank you for bringing this issue to the attention
of the... Bureau... it is the diligent self-policing by the industry
that helps to assure that existing licensees, and unlicensed businesses,
comply with the laws providing protection to California consumers. I
thank you for your diligence and concern in helping the Bureau...".
 >
 >
 >
 > 3.  Contra Costa County, CA, Superior Court Case #WS05-1112
 >
 >
 > 4.  Contra Costa County, CA, Superior Court Case #WS02-2799
 >
 >
 > 5.  Excerpts from four Bay Alarm Company press releases on the
BayAlarm.com website:
 >     http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=01_06
 >     "Quincy, MA - January 2006...  Shane [M. Clary] is the Vice
President of Codes and Standards Compliance for Bay Alarm Company."
 >
 >     http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=04_04_05
 >     "Santa Clara, CA - April 4, 2005...  Bay Alarm's V.P. of Codes &
Standards Compliance, Dr. Shane M. Clary..."
 >
 >     http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=12_22_04
 >     "Boston, MA - December 22, 2004...  Shane M. Clary, Ph.D., Vice
President, Codes and Standards Compliance for Bay Alarm Company..."
 >
 >     http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=05_28_04
 >     "SALT LAKE CITY, UT - May 28, 2004...  Bay Alarm Company, the
California based security solutions provider,
 >     is proud to announce the election of Shane M. Clary, Ph.D., Vice
President, Codes and Standards Compliance for
 >     Bay Alarm Company, to the Board of Directors for the Building and
Fire Safety Systems Section of the
 >     National Fire Protection Association."
 >
 > ***



Everywhere Man wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>>Everywhere Man wrote:
>>
>>>They wouldn't need to raise as much if they didn't waste our membership
>>>fees on trade show booths, airfares, car rentals, and hotel
>>>accomodations. Honestly, who visits those booths other than members who
>>>just want to hobnob?
>>>As for the alarm company getting smacked for 4.5 mil..... tough shit.
>>>Next time secure the place better, using proper design, equipment, good
>>>installers, and top shelf monitoring.
>>>If I get sued for a client losing his ass because I provided an
>>>unrealiable system then by all means hang me out to dry.
>>>The NBFAA needs to start doing something realistic like fighting for a
>>>cookie cutter burg & fire licensing guideline to be accepted by all
>>>states, or fighting the national telemarketing laws that take food out
>>>of our mouths but don't apply to politicians.
>>>And you don't need to be a mass marketer to be affected by
>>>telemarketing legislation. I'm sure thousands of accounts are now owned
>>>by people posting here who don't telemarket but came across that
>>>account because the customer wanted to shop around before saying yes to
>>>the marketing company.
>>
>>
>>Ghawd but your crochety.
>>
>>
>>I'm sure glad I'm not going to be around when you get to be my age. <
>
>
> Crotchety yes, but am I wrong in what I said?
> I mean Honest to GOD how many fucking membership dollars went out the
> window on shit no member in their right mind actually cares about? I'm
> not talking about the members who swear by it because it's the only
> place they go that other people will listen to them. Those are lost
> causes. They are the people who join AARP and can't wait for the
> monthly newsletter to see if their story complaining about the price of
> pay toilets for seniors at the nude beach was printed.
>
> Seriously, show me one member who joined for any reason other than to
> be able to display the logo, and even that couldn't draw flies if it
> was made from shit, let alone close a deal for us.
> I pay a membership fee so my email can get flooded with nonsense offers
> from companies who MUST be throwing a kickback to the NBFAA? Now I pay
> to be the one on the receiving end of the sales pitch?
>
> And am I the only one who finds it strange that every fucking meeting
> is held in an establishment that serves liquor? If we are talking
> business then schedule the meeting in a hotel conference room and not
> your friend's local pub & grill. If I want to get drunk I certainly
> don't want to do it sitting next to a bunch of assclowns debating the
> proper positioning of an end of line resistor, or who sold more
> accounts than who.
>
> The Association is a shell of what it should be, and spare me the "well
> if more people would participate it would be different" mantra because
> that's a load of camel cock too. The elections are more pre-determined
> than a pro wrestling match, and with the same results. After both are
> over you feel stupid for wasting time on it.
>
> Other than that I am a pretty soft spoken guy :-)
>