Re: An Inconvenient Truth - Unlicensed Bay Alarm Company - Message from the CAA President

[secure15 <secure15@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nick Lawrence wrote:
> Group:
> Here is a message from Jon Sargent, CAA President, along with my reply.
> Got whitewash anyone?
>
>
> Jon Sargent
> CAA President
>
> 10-17-2006
>
> This is not "going away".
>
> The CAA has rules; Bay Alarm Company violated them. Bay Alarm Company
> caused this problem, now they can't take the heat.
>
> You (you personally, Jon) promised that you would take action if you got
> more proof. I gave it to you; it re-affirms and proves each allegation,
> namely that Bay Alarm Company was unlicensed. Its your turn to deliver
> on your promise, and help show that the CAA can police its own and not
> be just a "good old boys club".
>
> You offered these additional thoughts (followed by my comments):
>
>  >Below I have listed some of the thoughts expressed during the meeting.
>
>  >The CAA Board is comprised of volunteers. It would be a monumental
> task >for volunteers to thoroughly research the license status of every
>  >current and future member. We rely on the state licensing entities to
>  >insure that companies are properly licensed. According to BSIS records
>  >Bay Alarm was properly licensed when Matt Westphal was elected as CAA
>  >Northern Vice President.
>
> Interesting, but the CAA Bylaws mandates this responsibility to the
> Board, to ensure all members meet the minimum requirements for
> membership. And, in this case, and with the grievances filed in July
> 2005, it has been proved that Bay Alarm Company was unlicensed from 2000
> until 2006, so all the Board volunteers need to do its take action. The
> fact that the Grievance Committee did not "thoroughly research" Bay
> Alarm Company's unlicensed status and ignored the inconvenient truth of
> the allegations does not make the allegations untrue or go away.
>
>  >There is no proof that Bay Alarm willfully circumvented the licensing
>  >process. Actually the proof is to the contrary. Chief Johnson admitted
>  >that the BSIS very well might have given Bay Alarm erroneous
>  >information regarding their license status.
>
> Again, interesting, but Bay Alarm Company's motive is not the issue. The
> issue is that the CAA is open only to licensed alarm companies, Bay
> Alarm Company was unlicensed, and they (including their George Matthew)
> lied about it. Thus, Bay Alarm Company, from 2000 until 2006 was
> ineligible for membership.
>
>  >Your current grievance is too similar to a previous grievance that had
>  >already been resolved by the grievance committee.
>
> Actually, if you read them you will see that they are substantially all
> new grievances, based upon newly discovered facts and documents. The
> fact that the Grievance Committee whitewashed the initial fact finding
> in 2005, thereby "resolving" nothing except their own bias, makes it all
> the more important that they open their eyes and do a truthful job this
> time.
>
>  >Even if the board so chose to take action the current By-laws only
>  >allow the general membership to remove an officer from office. By the
>  >time that were to occur, Matt Westphal would have already completed
> his >current term.
>
> There are other options, namely a finding can be made by the Board: that
> (i) the grievances are/were factually correct, that (ii) Bay Alarm
> Company was unlicensed from 2000 to 2006, that (iii) they subsequently
> got licensed. Then we can all go home. The longer the Board ignores (and
> thereby condones) Bay Alarm Company's wrongful acts, the longer the CAA
> will continue to be the laughingstock of the industry.
>
> This is not going away. And Bay Alarm Company operations are still not
> properly licensed (more on that later as the documents arrive...)
>
> And there are other regular members unlicensed during this same period.
>
> Regards,
> Nick Lawrence
> 911 Inc.
>
>
> Sargent, Jon wrote (on 10-16-06):
>
>  > Hi Nick,
>  >
>  > Although the grievance committee decided no further action was to be
> taken, the full CAA Board of Directors was then provided with your
> complete set of grievances prior to our Board meeting. After detailed
> discussion the Board of Directors determined and voted that no further
> action should be taken.
>  >
>  > Sincerely,
>  > Jon Sargent, President
>  > California Alarm Association
Yep-Sounds like "Good Ole Boys" to me!
Just feature my picture like George in every issue of SDM and SSI, etc
and everything is fine.