 |
Supplemental Letter  |
|
June 23, 2009
Joanna Gin, Analyst
RE: SB202 - Opposed - Supplemental Letter Dear Ms. Gin and Assembly BP&E Committee Members: This is a supplemental letter to my June 2, 2009 letter in opposition to SB202. I completely oppose SB202 and my comments on the amendments should not be construed in any manner as support for the bill. In addition to my prior objections and concerns regarding SB202, please accept and incorporate the following supplement. I am a current and active member of both CALI, the sponsor of SB202 as well as a member of PICA, the association whose membership recently voted to actively "oppose" SB202. Since my June 2, 2009 letter in opposition, I have reviewed the bill as amended on June 15, 2009. The following are some of my observations as to the deficiencies of the amendments and the bill as a whole. CEPs and Review Panel From Page 5, lines 14 - 20 from the June 15, 2009 amended bill: (2) The department shall convene a review panel to consult with the department in the consideration and approval of CEPs and course content. The review panel shall include representative of CEPs and professional associations of licensed private investigators. Accredited academic institutions and recognized national and state associations of licensed private investigators may be approved by the department as CEPs.
Assembly Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development
Page Two The above language mandates that the review panel will include representatives of both CEPs and professional associations of licensed private investigators. CALI=s Education Committee is composed of good enough people, but none have achieved a minimum of bachelor=s degree, yet this association will have a seat(s) on the review panel to approve CEPs and course content? As well, these same associations may be approved by the department as CEPs. Well, if CALI is sponsoring SB202 and front-loading and leading the review panel, it doesn=t require much imagination to realize they will approve their courses because it=s a major revenue source. Why does this bill blindly give associations that have not been approved or accredited by any education body a controlling voice in how 9,991 licensed investigators should be educated? Simply because CALI is sponsoring the bill? Is that the minimum qualification? I suggest that any policymaking review panel members are qualified in education. Unqualified lay-persons should have no right to direct and control a multi-million dollar California educational program or to determine how California licensed private investigators should be educated. It=s clearly beyond their expertise. Unless otherwise qualified and credentialed, CALI, PICA and NCISS are all lay-associations and their involvement should not be policymaking. Consultation with policymakers, perhaps, but not policymaking that conveniently brings a neatly wrapped multi-million dollar cottage industry to their doorsteps. Another point for consideration, CALI=s Legislation Chair and a primary force behind SB202, Francie Koehler, is also President of NCISS, a national private investigator association with approximately 1,200 members. She also sits on CALI=s education committee. I do not believe it is unintentional that national associations are listed as entities that Amay@ be approved as CEPs and that the review panel Ashall@ include representatives of CEPs and professional associations of licensed private investigators. This bill intentionally front-loads the review panel and CEPs with representatives of professional associations of licensed investigators to which the Sponsors are board members. (Francie Koehler is CALI=s Legislative Chair and President of NCISS. CALI=s President is Jim Zimmer he is also 3rd VP for NCISS). How are any of these associations qualified to put their unaccredited training courses on par with those from accredited academic institutions? How is it that someone without a specialized advanced degree or an unaccredited private investigator association can become the education czar for the California Private Investigator? The only way is by self-coronation, which SB202 will do. This is utterly irresponsible given the fact that CALI has been losing many tens of thousands of dollars annually on their for-profit educational programs.
Assembly Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development
Page Three If SB202 is necessary and truly good legislation, someone specifically qualified should be put in charge and not simply those who have written the bill and funded it against the will of their own membership and the entire industry. Quality will matter and is still seriously lacking in the amended bill. State Bar & POST From Page 5, lines 2- 10 from the June 15, 2009 amended bill: (A) CEPs that have been approved by, and are in good standing with, the State Bar to provide mandatory continuing legal education may offer courses for continuing education to licensed private investigators without approval form the department. (B) CEPs that have been approved by, and are in good standing with, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training may offer courses that have been approved by the commission to licensed private investigators for continuing education without approval from the department. Where is there any correlation between the qualifications, educational and training backgrounds of lawyers and police officers with private investigators? (It may sound good, but like the Author and Sponsor=s error in calculating revenue from the renewal fee increases, there is no cohesive connection. The opposition pointed out the 108K revenue shortfall at the Senate BP&E hearing based on their revenue projections. This disclosure caused the recent amendment adding and shifting unknown fees to the CEPs to cover the unknown costs). The language directly from the bill=s preamble, is; Arequire the department to establish and impose a fee on course providers, in an amount that does not exceed the department=s direct costs in implementing various provisions of the bill.@ Page 5, lines 24 - 30, of the amended bill, amended on June 15, 2009: (4) The department shall establish and charge a fee, to be paid by CEPs, in an amount not to exceed the department=s direct costs in implementing the provisions of this section that require the department to approve CEPs and to perform audits, as described in subdivision (g), and to develop criteria for course providers and course content, as described in subdivision (h).
Assembly Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development
Page Four This is nothing more than a blank check and dodging the real issue. How much will this program cost the State, consumers, CEPs and licensees and is there value? There are no reliable answers, only a Afix it as we go mentality@ and that mentality isn=t working well for anybody in this economic environment. Besides there being no evidence that the State Bar or POST can or will offer any courses, there is no articulated requirement for them to adhere to any of the provisions that any other CEP, under SB202, would be required to adopt. There is no curriculum requirement upon the State Bar or POST, there is no requirement that they pay any fees, and they=re pre-approved and ready to offer certified training on day one. One begs the question, how will the Adirectly related fees@ be assessed? Will a one course CEP be required to pay the same fee as a provider offering 100 courses? Might this affect the cost of courses and limit quality and competition from CEPs while creating the cottage industry and industry control that the opposition to SB202 has been cautioning about over the past year? The current state of the bill seemingly eliminates the ability of courses being offered free of charge as are presently offered because the provider would still have to pay a yet undetermined CEP fee to the Department. This lack of forethought is remarkable and unfortunate. Is this not putting the cart before the mule? With regard to the status of the ADepartment,@ attached as Attachment #1 is an article relating to the recent resignation of Connie Lopez, Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs over financial improprieties. Is the Department adequately funded and staffed under the strains of the state economy and budget shortfalls to equitably comply with the provisions of SB202 without making private investigators their golden egg? Implementation Timetable The most recent amendments create an unfair requirement on private investigators to fulfill their continuing education mandates. The licenses that are due for renewal during the year 2012, as is mine and approximately half of the state=s 9,991 licensees, would be required to obtain six hours of the core mandated courses in ethics, privacy rights and legal updates as a requirement for renewal. However, if my license renewal is on January 10th, 2012, I would have to have these courses completed prior to 2012 given the fact my license would not be renewed without the required self-certification of completion. Currently there is a six-week lead-time for processing license renewals to consider. This will require that I have my courses completed in November 2011.
Assembly Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development
Page Five Why is there a requirement for me to complete required courses by a certain date yet no requirement for the Department to have those courses available for me to complete? Perhaps having a requirement for the Department to be ready by a certain date with the entire program to trigger compliance dates makes more sense then mandating licensees complete that which is not in place and is clearly problematic. There is no start date for the clock to start ticking, yet there is a mandate for completion. Additionally, approximately half of the state=s licensees will be incurring a license renewal fee increase to implement a program in which they are not required to participate in until January 1, 2013. Further, is there a provision for them to gain credit for their voluntary continuing education during 2010, 2011 or 2012? So, some licensees would be mandated to take training and others may not gain credit for the training they do obtain? If so, this creates another inequity where there is no value received from the increased fees and further reveals the shortsightedness of the Author and Sponsor to craft a worthy bill. Why is this bill not equitable across the board? One suggested method to create equity would be to require that the Department of Consumer Affairs cover all the associated costs incurred between 2010 and 2012 and to provide the training at their cost to those with license renewals in 2012. If this is a dress rehearsal, which I believe it is as best, why shouldn't there be mandates for the Department to get it right before it is imposed and threatens our professional licenses? Historically, the Department does not get it right on the first try as has been and is still being evidenced with the Photo ID Card requirement after seven years of trying. Why not simply apply or expand the authority under B&P Sections 7527.1 and 7542.2 and cut out the unnecessary layers of special interest and bureaucracy? I believe this illustrates the slippery economic slope we are all facing. If the State of California can=t handle it, how can anyone assume that the state=s licensees can? If the State can=t pay for, how can they require that CEPs pick up the tab for their trials and tribulations? And when all is said and done, whose pockets will be hardest hit? Do these flaws not illustrate the lack of planning, inadequate financial forecasting for all concerned and give the Department mandates where there is no evidence that they can or will perform? What about unintended consequences that many speak about? If you require a licensee a mandate to perform, you should also mandate the entity to which the performance is required to first have performed. Why not start this off with a condition precedent as opposed to a condition subsequent? Is this just a simple inconvenience?
Assembly Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development
Page Six Law Enforcement Exemptions The Sponsor of SB202, CALI, is on record since the inception of SB1282 as stating, AUnfortunately, the law enforcement background does not prepare an individual to conduct business in the private sector and the required test does not require the same education as the continuing education program would provide. SB202 serves to correct that deficiency.@ (See Attachment #2 from CALI President Jim Zimmer). Now, the Author and Sponsor have amended SB202 to furlough retired peace officers who have retired within one year of the mandate as well as exempt active peace officers. This is nothing more than them dropping to their knees so that PORAC would, and they did, remove their otherwise fatal opposition to SB202. This signaled that SB202 is enthralled in politics and not consumer related policies. However, it doesn=t change the fact that the Sponsor was using this line of support for their bill since their white paper introducing SB1282 in February 2008 and through April 2009 when PORAC jumped on them. What changed other than the fatal position of PORAC? How can the Author and Sponsor justify this to the Committee? Is this an example of politics or good policymaking? As stated above, a recent amendment automatically approves the State Bar and POST, (PORAC was responsible for the POST amendment), to offer courses without department approval. Is this ambiguous or negligent? There is no basis for this exemption of department approval other than brand name association. There is no evidence that the State Bar or POST have or will have any core courses that pertain to ethics, legal updates or privacy concerns relating to the California Private Investigator. As an example, are not police ethics and standards different than a criminal defense investigator=s? What is the baseline for this blind acceptance? There is absolutely no evidence that either the State Bar or POST have been contacted or that they want anything to do with the mess to be created by SB202. Closing SB202 has been produced without collaborative involvement from qualified participants, but rather by those positioning themselves and their associations to review, approve and provide the required courses. It is now very obvious that the provisions of SB202 have not been properly vetted and that it is not equitable. It is absolutely unnecessary given the absence of credible evidence that consumers of California private investigators are incurring any harm, not just some, but any measurable harm.
Assembly Committee on Business, Professions & Economic Development
Page Seven I believe that if the special interests of the Sponsor were eliminated from the equation, there would be no SB202. Plain and simple, SB202 is part of an industry take-over. What are the sponsor=s qualifications to sit and preside at any table and direct the education of an industry? What are their qualifications to be grand-fathered in as education providers except for the fact that they are sponsoring the bill? Take the Sponsor out of the controlling and receiving end of the equation and I believe you will find a much different level of enthusiasm and drive for SB202 from both sides of the issue.
We citizens of California have many challenges ahead of us as we move through the present economic crises. We deserve better. SB202 is unfair, unnecessary, uncertain at many levels and unqualified as written and amended. Very truly yours, CAPITAL CITY INVESTIGATIONS
RICK von GELDERN
Enclosures |