[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]
An Inconvenient Truth - Unlicensed Bay Alarm Company.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080607070300050005070005
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 below^1 .
>
> 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 letter^2 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 Maciel^3 and Robert
> Smith^4 , 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 releases^5 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... S//hane [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.//"
>
> ***
> /
--------------080607070300050005070005
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font color="#ff0000"><font face="ARIAL"><font color="#000000">Group:<br>
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.<br>
Get out the large size Vaseline and whitewash they do.<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><i></i></font></font>
<blockquote cite="mid4509C059.1060802@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" type="cite"><font
face="Arial">Mr. Jon Sargent, President<br>
</font><font face="Arial">California
Alarm Association</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><br>
September 2006<br>
<br>
RE: An Inconvenient Truth.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial"><i>"It is a 'Good Old Boys Club'"</i>.
That's
the
perception behind </font><font face="Arial">one of the three top
reasons many alarm companies elect not
to participate in association affairs, opines </font><font face="Arial">California
Alarm Association (CAA)</font><font face="Arial">
Director and Grievance Committee Chairman Mr. George
DeMarco in</font><font face="Arial"> <i>"Trade
Associations: What's In It
For Me?"</i>, his Page 1 article in the August 2006
CAA publication <i>"THE MIRROR"</i>.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial">The undersigned represents CAA regular
member
911 Inc, provider of discount-price 911ALARM </font>®<font face="Arial">
alarm monitoring
services, and therefore, definitely not one of Mr. DeMarco's <i>"good
old boys"</i>. On behalf of the many other non<i>-good-old-boy</i>
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.</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><br>
<b><u>Background:</u></b><br>
In July 2005, 14 months ago, 911 Inc filed a formal grievance with the </font><font
face="Arial">CAA</font><font face="Arial">, 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.<br>
<br>
These licenses are required to lawfully operate in California:
</font><br>
<blockquote><font face="Arial">(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 </font><br>
<font face="Arial">(ii) For a fire alarm company, a Contractors
license in
Classification C10 (Electrical), issued by the CA Contractors State
License Board (CSLB). </font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Arial">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. <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial">The CAA Bylaws requirements for regular
membership include: <br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Arial">(i) Must
provide electronic security systems for the general public, and </font><br>
<font face="Arial">(ii)
Have valid California state licenses to operate in those segments of
the electronic security industry as the member may be operating.</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Arial">The CAA Code of Ethics, referenced herein, is
printed below<sup>1</sup>.<br>
<br>
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. </font><font face="Arial">In short, the CAA <i>"good
old boys club"</i> 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. <br>
<br>
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 <i>"good old boys"</i> 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. </font><br>
<font face="Arial"><br>
For its part, Bay Alarm Company, with its impressive client list,
widespread operations, professional staff, multi-generational
family management and </font><font face="Arial">huge profits, </font><font
face="Arial">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
<i>"Core Values"</i> (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.<br>
<br>
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 letter<sup>2</sup>
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.<br>
<br>
<u>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.</u><br>
<br>
However, and acting on those very same documents, the CSLB</font><font
face="Arial"> 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</font><font face="Arial"> issued to it
new C10 license </font><font face="Arial">
#880138</font><font face="Arial"> (see link #4 below).<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
</font><b><font face="Arial"><u>Here are newly discovered facts, and
the
"more proof" you requested:</u></font></b><br>
<blockquote><font face="Arial">1. This link confirms the date
Bay
Alarm Company first
held an ACO license was 12-28-2005:</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=28&P_LTE_ID=632";>http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=28&P_LTE_ID=632</a></font><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial">2. This link shows that Bay Alarm Company came
into existence on
10-20-2000:</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2266301";>http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C2266301</a></font><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial">3. This link shows Balco Holdings Inc came into
existence in 1960:</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C0393236";>http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C0393236</a></font><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial">4. This link shows that new C10 fire alarm
license 880138 was issued
to
corporation Bay Alarm Company on 6-28-06:</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=880138";>http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=880138</a></font><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial">5. This link shows every officer, all 4 of whom
are
named 'Westphal', of Bay Alarm Company, holder of C10 fire alarm
license 880138:</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/Personnel+List.asp?LicNum=880138";>http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/Personnel+List.asp?LicNum=880138</a></font><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial">6. This link
shows that C10 fire alarm license 261003 is issued to,
and
has been held by, Balco Holdings Inc since 1970:</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=261003";>http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB_LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=261003</a></font><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Arial">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.</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<u>Quick Recap:</u><br>
<u>Bay Alarm Company</u>, CAA regular member, incorporated on
10-20-2000, and
engaging
in the burglar and fire alarm business, held these licenses:</font><br>
<ul>
<li><font face="Arial">
Beginning on 10-20-2000, held neither required license.</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">
>From 12-28-2005 until 6-28-2006, held an ACO license, but not a
C10
license.</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">
>From 6-28-2006 until present, holds both of the required licenses.</font></li>
</ul>
<font face="Arial">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.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial"><u>Balco Holdings Inc</u>, a "Holding
Company", although not engaging in the
alarm business for
over 5 years, did hold
these licenses:</font><br>
<ul>
<li><font face="Arial">
Beginning in the 1970's until 12-28-2005, held both ACO and C10
licenses.</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">
>From 12-28-2005 until 6-28-2006, held a C10 license, but not an
ACO
license.</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">
>From 6-28-2006 until present, does not hold an ACO license.</font></li>
</ul>
<font face="Arial">Therefore Balco Holdings Inc, a "holding company"
since 2000, does not meet the minimum requirements for regular
membership in the CAA.</font><br>
<font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
<font color="#000000"><b><u>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:</u></b><br>
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. </font><font color="#000000">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.<br>
<br>
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), </font>
<font color="#000000">without
disclosing that it did not meet the minimum requirements for
regular membership. Bay Alarm Company's acts constitute an unfair
business
practice </font></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">as defined
by California Business
and Professions Code </font><font color="#000000" face="ARIAL">§</font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial">17,200</font><font face="Arial"><font
color="#000000">, and a violation of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.<br>
<br>
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. </font></font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial">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</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">, and
constitute violations of the CAA Bylaws and the CAA Code of Ethics #3.</font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
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</font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial"> 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.<br>
<br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">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. </font><font color="#000000"
face="Arial">This
created unfair competition to the detriment of all other regular
members of the
CAA within the areas in which Bay Alarm Company operated. </font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial">This constitutes a
violation of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.</font><font color="#000000"
face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
6. Bay Alarm Company's representative Mr. George Mathew, <small><big>Sales
Manager,</big> </small>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: <font color="#3333ff">"</font><span class="409452320-29092005"><font
size="2"><font color="#3333ff">Our
Contractors Lic number is 261003 & our ACO number is 28."</font> </font></span></font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial">This false statement constitutes a
violation of the CAA Code of
Ethics #3.</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
<br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">7. Bay Alarm Company's
representative </font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">Mr. George
Mathew</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">, representing
an
unlicensed burglar and fire alarm company, did not meet the minimum
requirements to be a member of the CAA. </font><font color="#000000"
face="Arial">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</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"> and the CAA Code of
Ethics #3.</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">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 </font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">and of the CAA
Code of Ethics #3.</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
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 </font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">and of the CAA Code
of Ethics #3.</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
<br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">10. Bay Alarm Company
continued to engage in
the fire
alarm business from 12-28-2005 until 6-28-2006, </font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial">during which period it must have known
such activities
were unlawful, without the required C10 fire alarm license, violations
of CA law </font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">and of the CAA
Code of Ethics #3.</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">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.<br>
<br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">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, </font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial">during which period it must have known
such advertising
was false,</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"> that Bay Alarm
Company held the required C10 license, by advertising Bay Alarm Company
then held license C10-261003.<br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">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.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial"><font color="#000000">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.<br>
<br>
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</font>
regular membership.<br>
<br>
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 subscrib<font color="#000000">er 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</font><font color="#000000">,
lawsuits were brought against subscribers Paul Maciel<sup>3</sup> and
Robert
Smith<sup>4</sup>, and numerous others.</font></font><font face="Arial"><font
color="#000000"><b> </b></font></font><font face="Arial"><font
color="#000000">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 </font></font><font
face="ARIAL"><font color="#0000cc"><font color="#000000">(§7592.5
& §7031a)</font></font></font><font face="Arial"><font
color="#000000">, constitute
an unfair business practice (</font></font><font face="ARIAL"><font
color="#0000cc"><font color="#000000">B&P §17,200)</font></font></font><font
face="Arial"><font color="#000000">, unjustly enriches them, and are
therefore
a violation of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.</font></font><br>
<font face="Arial"><font color="#000000"><br>
</font></font><font face="Arial">19. </font><font face="Arial">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.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial">20. </font><font face="Arial">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, </font><font face="Arial">by continuing to
engage in the fire alarm business and advertising </font><font
face="Arial">that Bay Alarm Company then held
license C10-261003.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
22. Bay Alarm Company's press releases<sup>5</sup> 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, </font><font face="Arial">public records filed with the CSLB
(see link #5 above) </font><font face="Arial">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.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="Arial"><br>
<b><u>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:</u></b><br>
1. Balco Holdings Inc did not meet the minimum requirements </font><font
face="Arial">set forth by the CAA Bylaws for regular membership</font><font
face="Arial"> from and after 2000, because it is a "Holding Company"
and is not engaged in the alarm<font color="#000000"> business, </font><font
color="#000000">a
requirement for regular membership in the CAA.<br>
</font><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 <font color="#000000">Code of
Ethics #3</font></font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">.</font><font
face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
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, </font><font
color="#000000" face="Arial">during which period it must have known
such activity was
improper, </font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">violations of CA
law and of the CAA Code of Ethics #3.<br>
<br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial">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</font><font color="#000000"
face="Arial">.</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><br>
</font><font face="Arial"><font color="#000000">6. Balco Holdings
Inc
continued to "loan"
its license number C10-261003 to
unlicensed Bay Alarm Company from 12-28-2005 until at least</font>
6-28-2006, </font><font face="Arial">during which period it must have
known such activity was
improper, </font><font face="Arial">thereby aiding and abetting an
unlicensed fire alarm company, violations of CA law and of the CAA Code
of Eth<font color="#000000">ics
</font><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#000000">#3.</font><br>
</font><br>
</font><font face="Arial">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 </font><font face="Arial">shame, discredit, and
disgrace</font><font face="Arial"> to the CAA, a
violation of the CAA
Code of Ethics #3.<br>
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
<b><u>Summary:</u></b><br>
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. <br>
<br>
At that hearing, the following specific remedies will be sought:<br>
</font>
<ul>
<li><font face="Arial">That the CAA find, and its records made to
confirm and ratify, the truth of each of the allegations above.</font></li>
<li><font face="Arial">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.</font></li>
</ul>
<font face="Arial">Bay Alarm Company states </font><font face="Arial">(at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://bayalarm.com/careers_culture.php";>http://bayalarm.com/careers_culture.php</a>)
</font><font face="Arial">these
as among its <i>"Core Values"</i>:<br>
<i><b> Reputation: </b>It is our desire to be judged on the
merits
of our words and actions both personally and professionally.<br>
<b> Integrity and Honesty: </b>We do not make excuses or
rationalize
our failures.</i>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial">With these <i>"Core Values"</i> 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.<br>
</font><font face="Arial"><br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Nick Lawrence<br>
President,<br>
911 Inc.<br>
<br>
<br>
***<br>
<b><u>Footnotes:</u></b><br>
</font><font face="Arial">1. CAA "CODE OF ETHICS"</font><i><br>
</i>
<blockquote><i>1. To promote the highest standards of performance and
professional</i><br>
<i>conduct in the electronic security industry.</i><br>
<i>2. To foster objectives founded on principles of justice and
integrity
that</i><br>
<i>are beneficial to all persons involved in the electronic
security
industry and</i><br>
<i>the general public.</i><br>
<i>3. To deal honestly, fairly, and to be guided by a spirit of
justice and</i><br>
<i>honor in all matters.</i><br>
<i>4. To provide mutual aid to members and to disseminate
information</i><br>
<i>vital to the electronic security industry.</i><br>
<i>5. To encourage and support sound legislation affecting the
electronic</i><br>
<i>security industry.</i></blockquote>
<br>
<font face="Arial"><br>
2. The letter from BSIS Chief Johnson is dated 12-29-2005 and states,
in pertinent part:<br>
</font>
<blockquote><font face="Arial">"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." <br>
<br>
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 <u>a new license issued</u> the same date <u>in
December
2005</u>,
bearing the name of <u>Bay Alarm Company</u> and the License number of
<u>ACO-28</u>.". <br>
<br>
..."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...".</font><br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Arial"><br>
<br>
3. Contra Costa County, CA, Superior Court Case #WS05-1112<br>
<br>
<br>
4. Contra Costa County, CA, Superior Court Case #WS02-2799<br>
<br>
<br>
5. Excerpts from four Bay Alarm Company press releases on the
BayAlarm.com website:</font>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=01_06";>http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=01_06</a><br>
<i> "Quincy, MA - January 2006... S</i><i>hane [M. Clary]</i><i>
is
the
<u>Vice President</u> of Codes and Standards Compliance for Bay Alarm
Company."</i>
<br>
<strong></strong><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=04_04_05";>http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=04_04_05</a><i><br>
"Santa Clara, CA - April 4, 2005... Bay Alarm's <u>V.P.</u> of
Codes
&
Standards Compliance, Dr. Shane M. Clary..."<br>
<br>
</i><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=12_22_04";>http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=12_22_04</a><i><br>
"Boston, MA - December 22, 2004... Shane M. Clary, Ph.D., <u>Vice
President</u>, Codes and Standards Compliance for Bay Alarm Company..."
</i><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=05_28_04";>http://bayalarm.com/news_pages.php?id=05_28_04</a><br>
<i> "SALT LAKE CITY, UT - May 28, 2004... Bay Alarm Company, the
California based security solutions provider, <br>
is proud to announce the
election of Shane M. Clary, Ph.D., <u>Vice President</u>, Codes and
Standards
Compliance for <br>
Bay Alarm Company, to the Board of Directors for the
Building and Fire Safety Systems Section of the <br>
National Fire
Protection Association.</i><i>"<br>
<br>
***<br>
</i><br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------080607070300050005070005--
alt.security.alarms Main Index |
alt.security.alarms Thread Index |
alt.security.alarms Home |
Archives Home