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

Group: Here is a message from Jon Sargent, CAA President, along with my reply. Got whitewash anyone?

Jon Sargent CAA President


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
Reply to
Nick Lawrence
Loading thread data ...

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.

Reply to
secure15 Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.