CALSAGA staff, lobbyist and members of the association are working the halls of the Capitol today, in an effort to raise awareness of our issues. Meetings with key legislators and staff were scheduled throughout the day. Check back on the blog tomorrow for a full recap.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is poised to give his fifth State of the State tonight at the Capitol. In excerpts released earlier this morning, the Sacramento Bee reports that the Governor will blame the State's formulaic budgeting system for the estimated $14 billion deficit the State is facing. Moreover, the Governor will call for across-the-board cuts in favor of raising taxes.
CALSAGA will be closely watching how much money is allocated to the Bureau of Security & Investigative Services (BSIS). As many of you know, CALSAGA applauded the Governor for increasing the BSIS budget in 2007-2008 by $1.4 million, which has been instrumental in BSIS' effort to hire enforcement agents to crack down on unlicensed activity.
Stay tuned....
Just when the special legislative session appeared to be fruitless, the Assembly passed a $14.4 billion health care reform plan today on a party-line vote, 45-31. The bill would provide coverage for most uninsured Californians.
Assembly Republican Leader, Mike Villines (R - Clovis) said the bill was "more public relations than policy" while Speaker Fabian Nunez (D - Los Angeles) countered by saying it was not just a publicity stunt. Regardless, the Senate isn't expected to vote on the bill anytime soon, most likely not until the beginning of the year after Governor Schwarzenegger releases his 2008-2009 budget proposal.
Click here to read an article in the Sacramento Bee.
The article in the Daily News Clips today about the city of Twin Falls, Idaho adopting city-level regulation of private security firms is a good reminder that state-level regulation, as we have in California, is a far better model.
There is nothing wrong with Twin Fall's stated reason for the need to regulate the firms. But imagine if that trend took hold in California. If, for example, Pasadena, Glendale, and Burbank each had different ruules and regulations for security firms and security officers, a company might be allowed to work in one city, but not another. You might have to keep track of different training or uniform or licensing rules for each city, and perhaps certain officers of yours might be able to work in one city, but not another.
It would be an administrative nightmare.
That is why we are lucky to have state-level regulation of security here in California, and why CALSAGA has aggressively responded to any city-level regulations and encouraging BSIS to continue to assert state pre-emption on undue city regulation of our industry.
Recently, CALSAGA worked with the City of Oxnard in responding to draft regulations their City Council had discussed, some of which would have intruded on the state's realm of regulating security.
If you are aware of city level regulations that you believe cross the line into the areas that are supposed to be covered only by the state, let us know.
The California Common Cause filled an initiative yesterday that would put the task of drawing California's districts into the hands of a 14-member citizens commission made up of 5 democrats, 5 republicans and 4 independents.
The initiative comes after years of fustration, due to the inability of the Legislature to agree on a new method to draw California's districts. In the last two election cylces, not a single seat of the 120 possible seats in the California Legislature changed hands.
Click here to read the story in today's Sacramento Bee.
CALSAGA learned late Sunday that Assembly Bill 1025, authored by Assemblywoman Karen Bass (D – Los Angeles) who is a friend of our industry and CALSAGA, was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. AB 1025 would have permitted individuals previously convicted of crimes to work in a regulated profession.
While CALSAGA supports the author’s intent to increase jobs to constituents in her district, as well as offering rehabilitated individuals a chance at gainful employment, we were concerned that the bill took away a licensing entity’s discretion to deny a license or take other licensing actions. Additionally, the bill put the burden of proof on state licensing bodies to show that an individual is not rehabilitated, which could result in increased litigation.
Security officers in California need close scrutiny due to the nature of the work. CALSAGA was concerned that this bill could potentially compromise public safety, as well as roll back much of the work we have done in recent years to professionalize the industry with background checking and training standards.
To read the Governor’s veto message, click here.
No significant news clips this morning. However, we received word late last night that the Governor signed CALSAGA's SB 666. We will post more on that topic later this morning.
Despite an immense effort put forth by our lobbyist, our member companies and staff, it appears that meal and rest break reform will not happen this year. As it turned out, a deal was not able to come together in the limited time left before the end of the legislative session.
The good news is that we made significant progress this year, laying the groundwork for another push beginning in January 2008. As you know, CALSAGA made meal and rest break reform its top legislative priority for 2007 and spent countless of hours meeting with elected officials, industry representatives, Labor and key staff from the Governor's Administration.
Throughout the process, CALSAGA emerged as a major player in the negotiations and we will continue to play that role in further discussions on this issue.
The meal and rest break issue will be a major topic of discussion at the 2007 CALSAGA Annual Conference. In an effort to increase dialogue on the issue, we have confirmed an all-star lineup of speakers to discuss this issue, including Mike Prosio, Deputy Legislative Director for Governor Schwarzenegger, Angela Bradstreet, the newly-appointed Labor Commissioner and Laura Innes, with Simpson, Garrity and Innes.
As you know, CALSAGA has been working with the Schwarzenegger Adminstration, legislators and industry representatives this year on bringing some resolution to the meal and rest break issue. We are pleased to report that a potential deal which our lobbyists have been negotiating is gaining traction in the Legislature.
Because things are constantly evolving, we are not able to give any specifics at this time, but ask that each of our members be prepared to submit letters to their legislators asking them to support the bill. This request could come as early as this week, and at that time, we would be able to provide the details.
It will be absolutely imperative that we are well organized and ready to fully support this reform package on behalf of our industry.
We will continue to keep you as updated as possible on our blog.
After a rash of recent attacks in the Palm Springs area, local television news station KESQ-TV is highlighting the increase in assaults and attacks on private security officers in the Coachella Valley.
The article on the TV news website says, in part:
Police say it's becoming a disturbing trend -- security guards being threatened and attacked by criminals.
Two security companies in the desert NewsChannel 3 spoke to both agree that security guards are being targeted more now than ever.
They say it's because of a lack of respect for what these men and woman do. What they're doing, they say, is trying to protect the community.
In May, two Bower Security guards were shot while patrolling a shopping center in Cathedral City.
On June 9th, a 66-year-old security guard was protecting a housing development when he was pulled from his car and beaten to death.
And just this past weekend, a security guard patrolling Time Waner Cable in Desert Hot Springs was carjacked.
CALSAGA wants to know whether members believe this is a growing problem throughout California, or isolated to the Palm Springs area. CALSAGA has considered sponsoring legislation to increase penalties for attacking a security officer, and as a possible interim, to require BSIS to keep statistics to show whether attacks on private security are increasing.
Let us know your thoughts and experience on this issue. Please clink on the comments link below and tell us whether you are experiencing an increase in attacks on your officers, and what you think about possbile legislation to address this problem.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown's decision to restrict the design of honorary sheriff's badges is likely to have far reaching implications that may affect badges worn by non-sworn law enforcement personnel as well as private security officers in this state.
The opinion, written by deputy Attorney General Marc J. Nolan, states that "An honorary badge should be as distinguishable as possible from badges used by peace officers". Nolan added " The more an honorary badge resembles an authorized peace officer badge in shape, markings and other indications.....the more likely the badge will deceive an ordinary reasonable person".
While the Attorney General's opinion specifically applies to honorary badges awarded by sheriffs, the language of Nolan's statement may be used in arguments to further restrict the design of badges of non-sworn law enforcement, and also cause stirrings among those who favor tighter restrictions on private security badges. It is a deeply held belief among this group that an "ordinary reasonable person"can be easily fooled into believing that a badge that resembles anything other than a door bell is the badge of a sworn peace officer.
Unfortunately, what comes through in this kind of regulation is not the intent to readily distinguish between sworn peace officers and private security. But rather it is to warn the public about those who wear the oddly shaped badges. "Caution, the individual attempting to help you is not a peace officer". Is that our message?
As expected, the June 30 deadline for the California Legislature to pass a budget came and went. Nearly a month with still no resolve, the budget impasse is starting to have an effect on state employees (who haven't been paid in weeks) and has put transporation projects in Southern California on hold until a spending plan can be agreed on.
The Assembly passed the budget on July 20 and promptly left town for their summer recess. Many Senate legislators were furious that the Assembly did this, mainly because it put all the responsibility on the Senate to pass a budget and get it to Governor Schwarzenegger to sign.
The most recent development is that the Senate Republicans have proposed an additional $842 million in cuts, which has come under heavy criticsm from Senate Democrats. Senator Sheila Kuehl (D - Santa Monica) said, "it's egregious when 15 white men with money hold up the budget for 37 million people." Republicans claim the cuts (primarily in the State's welfare-to-work program) are necessary to put forth a more fiscal responsible budget. The Senate was scheduled for a floor session again today, as the pressure to pass a budget continues to build by the minute. Remember, it takes a 2/3 majority to pass the budget out of either the Assembly or Senate.
We'd love to hear your thoughts. Click on the comments button below this story and tell us what you think!
CALSAGA's sponsored legislation, SB 666 (authored by Senator Abel Maldonado), passed the Assembly Business & Professions Committee on a unanimous vote Tuesday after CALSAGA reached a compromise with opponents of the legislation, led by AEG, the owner/operators of Staples Center and Home Depot Center in Los Angeles.
SB 666 attempts to increase public safety, increase professionalism in the private security field, and level the playing field between contract and in-house security by requiring state regulation of minimum standards security training between contract and proprietary.
Staples Center, Target, the Los Angeles Dodgers, and the California Restaurant Association all opposed SB 666. They claimed that we were only sponsoring SB 666 to force them to contact out for their security. We argued that there was no reason that training for contract officers should be regulated by the state, while in-house security is unregulated.
For most the last two weeks, CALSAGA President Mark Miller, lobbyist Kelly Jensen, and Association Manager Jeff Flint met with legislators, policy committee staff, and representatives from both supporters and opposition of the bill.
As of Monday, July 2, the opponents of SB 666 were confident they had killed our bill, and they asked CALSAGA to just drop the legislation altogether. Their position remained that there should be no state scrutiny of their security training at all.
However, the CALSAGA team kept working, and votes started moving our way on the committee. By the morning of the hearing on Tuesday, the committee was split, with neither side sure of victory.
At that point, we sat down with lobbyists from Staples and Target, and worked out a compromise. SB 666 originally required the exact same 40 hour course that contract security officers take. Instead, we agreed to amend SB 666 to delegate to BSIS to develop training standards for in-house security appropriate to the nature of their work and industry. BSIS will have the power to set minimum numbers of hours and mandatory or elective course topics.
We believe this is a victory for public safety because in-house security operators began with a position that there should be no regulation at all, and they ended up agreeing that BSIS should be able to regulate them.
We believe SB 666 will help increase standards in our profession, improve public safety, and help both sides of the security industry.
As the June 30 deadline to pass a state budget looms, lawmakers admitted Friday that there are still some unresolved issues that will prevent them from completing the budget on time.
A two-house conference committee met on Friday, and on a party-line vote, approved a report that Democrats claim met Governor Schwarzenegger's and Republicans halfway. However, Republicans on the panel said the plan still needed additional cuts.
The Legislative Analyst's Office has predicted that there will be a $3.4 billion shortfall this year and an even larger gap of $5 billion for fiscal 2008-2009. Because State revenues are less than expected, you can bet that this will only complicate an agreement between Democrats and Republicans moving forward.
At the request of CALSAGA, Senator Maldonado and the Assembly Business & Professions Committee has delayed the vote on SB 666 by one week. The bill will now be heard in committee on July 3.
CALSAGA will be making two technical amendments to SB 666 to address the reasons that Staples Center owner/operator AEG claims is the basis for their opposition.
Frankly, we think Staples just doesn't want any state regulation of their security operation at all, but we will address the reasons why they claim they are opposed, show we are reasonable, and then watch as they create a new reason to be opposed.
In light of the opposition of Staples Center owner/operator AEG to SB 666, CALSAGA sent the following letter to the Assembly Business & Professions Committee.
Here are some excerpts from our letter:
AEG states that they already have a rigorous training program for their security officers, and that SB 666 is not necessary. They completely miss the point. If they indeed have such a program in place, they are to be commended. But similarly, when AB 2880 (Alarcon) imposed minimum standards for training on contract security, many in our industry also had strong training programs in place. However, the intent is to mandate certain minimum standards on an industry that is, by its nature, placed in the public trust. If AEG’s facilities indeed already have strong training requirements in place, then they are already in compliance with SB 666, and need not oppose it.
and
AEG states that the roles of contract security and proprietary security are vastly different. But that is not that case. Contrary to their assertion, the vast majority of contract officers work at the same site every day, because the customers want officers who are familiar with their sites, and who in return are officers the clients are familiar with. They do not, as AEG states, often “deploy to different locations each day, to a wide variety of customers, requiring very different types of security services.”
and
A recent Associated Press report on the private security industry called private security the “weak link in homeland security.” They identified lack of regulation or minimum standards for proprietary security as one of the major flaws in the industry. But thanks to the leadership of the California Legislature in passing a series of laws in the past 5 years, California is the exception to that rule. SB 666 will continue California’s leadership in providing the highest standards of security professionalism in the nation.
We asked before, given these facts, why does AEG really oppose AEG? The public deserves to know.
SB 666 is a very simple bill. Sponsored by CALSAGA and authored by Senator Abel Maldonado, SB 666 would simply require all proprietary security officers undergo the same minimum 40 hours of initial training and eight hours of annual continuing education that contract officers undergo.
As CALSAGA members know from complying with AB 2880 (which mandated the sane training requirements on contract security officers), AB 2880 requires:
SB 666 sailed out of the State Senate on a bi-partisan vote of 31-2.
Yet suddenly, Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG), the owners and operators of Staples Center and Home Depot Center in Los Angeles have come out opposed to SB 666.
Why?
You can read their reasons why in their letter to the committee .
Read this letter carefully, and you'll find yourself asking the question, why are they opposed?
After all, AEG claims they offer their in-house security officers training that exceeds SB 666. But SB 666 only sets minimum standards, and companies are allowed to exceed thse standards. Most PPOs in California had extensive training programs in place before AB 2880 passed, after all.
AEG claims that the curriculum is too narrow, but again, as PPOs know from AB 2880, the system is specifically set up to allow companies to customize the training to their needs. If AEG indeed offers training as extensive as they claim, then they could surely get BSIS to approve their program as compliant.
AEG claims that CALSAGA only sponsored SB 666 to try to force companies with in-house security to contract out, and they further claim they were unhappy with their prior contract security company. But CALSAGA has been very clear about our support for higher standards for all security. As we well know, the public cannot distinguish between contract and proprietary security, so the standards for the two should be the same.
So, when you boil down their reasons for opposing SB 666, you wonder again, why is AEG opposed to minimum training standards for their security officers?
Then, when you find out that AEG secretly opposed SB 194, which required criminal background checks and state registration for proprietary security, even though AEG claimed again that they already did background checks, it makes you wonder.
Are AEG's claims that they do training and background checks just that, claims? If they already have high standards, why would they oppose state minimum standards?
Remember that the next time you go to a Lakers game.
In this morning's edition of the Daily Private Security News Clips, we posted a link to this story:
BAKER — Police arrested a security guard accused of handcuffing two people Sunday while claiming he was a police officer, Police Chief Mike Knaps said.
Knaps said officers arrested Johnny Rogers III, 25, a security officer at the Renaissance Village trailer park on Sunday night after a complaint by a 27-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy. The incident occurred in another Baker mobile home park, where Rogers lives at 2119 W. Azalea Drive.
The other two residents said Rogers told them they were under arrest for stealing bicycles.
The 27-year-old man said Rogers managed to put a handcuff on one of his arms before he broke free, while the 15-year-old said he was handcuffed and thrown to the ground, Knaps said.
The two also claimed Rogers drew a pistol at one point and told them he was a police officer. The teenager said Rogers waved a collapsible baton in his face, the police chief said.
Knaps said officers booked Rogers at Parish Prison with false imprisonment while armed with a dangerous weapon, false impersonation of a police officer and simple battery. Officers found a pistol matching the one described by the victims in Rogers’ home, Knaps said.
CALSAGA has been tracking the use of security officer uniforms by individuals to impersonate police officers and commit crimes, and we believe it is a growing problem.
Because of this, CALSAGA is considering sponsoring legislation next year to strengthen laws against impersonating a police officer, and to make it illegal for an individual to possess or wear a security uniform if they are not employed as a security officer.
We are still exploring exactly how to formulate this legislation, and are interested in your opinion. If you have other examples of this happening, or thoughts on how this potential legislation show be worded, please email us or post a comment here.
Recent Comments