 |
 |
|
Association of California Investigative Professionals
June 4, 2009
Joanna Gin, Analyst
RE: SB202 - Opposed Dear Ms. Gin and Assembly BP&E Committee Members: A.C.I.P. (Association of California Investigative Professionals) is made up of individuals and firms who possess active licenses through the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. A recent poll of our members reflects that they are 100 % opposed to SB 202 as it is currently written. We believe that this bill is a means to create a financial windfall to CALI, the organization that drafted this legislation. It would seem that the only real problem that would be fixed by this bill becoming law would be to increase the membership in the organization promoting it so that the already financially challenged solo practitioners of the craft of Private Investigations would be able to attend their conferences and seminars to obtain the hours required. It has been said by some of the proponents that if a sole practitioner is struggling financially as a Private Investigator, that he or she should consider another profession. That type of elitist attitude is horrible for this industry. Is a shade tree mechanic less qualified to work on an engine than a trainee in a dealership repair shop? Should a barber close his doors because he doesn’t work from a Beverly Hill Salon? The truth is that many of the effected individuals are retired peace officers who have a lifetime of knowledge and practical experience and without whom; a great number of crimes in this state would not have been solved. Should we force them to fold up their tents because they do not have an office full of employee’s?
Remember please, that according to the current laws regarding licensure within this State, an employee of a Private Investigations Firm is not required to be licensed. Isn’t it ironic that the proponents of this bill decided to try to force Mandatory Continuing Education upon those who have earned the right to possess a license and have passed a strenuous test and thorough Background Investigation instead of attempting to correct the deficiencies of unlicensed persons conducting investigations?
June 2, 2009 Page Two Would it not be more prudent to mandate licensure with the same standards and requirements to all of those who currently conduct investigations through law firms, insurance agencies etc and get a “free pass” from the state to do so without a DOJ Check, a test of competency of any sort, no real experience at all? The proponents of this bill say that this is a needed measure to police our own within the industry. They have thrown about incidents like Hewlett Packard and such that had absolutely nothing to do with anyone licensed by the State of California. Yes, Anthony Pelicano was an isolated incident but for a person or group to assert that ethics training or legal up-date classes would have altered his chosen course is ludicrous. Mr. Pelicano allowed his greed and desire for notoriety to drive his actions and he is exactly where he belongs. The system worked in his case and will continue to do so as long as we do not over burden BSIS with needless tasks that cannot possibly be managed within the budget allotted. In order for BSIS to oversee this program, they will have to draw from within and some other critical task will go undone. They do not have the manpower or budget to deal with unlicensed activity reports and the issue with I.D. Cards was an abomination at best. To date, those issues remain paramount and there is no way that within the parameters defined, BSIS can truly handle all that it is tasked with. Instead of creating more red tape and regulatory issues that cannot be overseen, why not fix the problems at hand first? Hold a closed door session with the Acting Director of BSIS and ask her what the process for approving a Continuing Education Provider will be? She doesn’t know and cannot answer. We, the people this will affect have been told that if an entity is all ready approved for POST training or MCLE Provider, they will be grandfathered in and pre-approved. Shouldn’t someone at least pretend to review their materials for content and accuracy? Would it not be a sound idea to audit a class and ensure that it has something to do with the underlying profession? At one point, we were told that going to a local community college and taking a class on photography would count towards the CE requirement. Are they joking? Taking pictures of still life or flora and fauna have nothing to do with crime scene photography or photo logs, filter settings etc.
The proponents of this legislation have not begun to work out the details of this bill. They have been asked over and over to meet and confer with the opponents in an effort to make some form of reasonable effort to fix this legislation and with the exception of PORAC, have apparently refused to even acknowledge that there were any organizations or individuals who opposed.
June 2, 2009 Page Three Please list A.C.I.P as actively opposed to SB 202. It is a bad piece of legislation that does nothing to fix any real problems within this industry in this state at this time. Very truly yours,
|