Article 6-E comment deadline is here--get your voice heard!
I've been doing a lot of coverage of Article 6-E. I first wrote about it last year, when it starting causing a stir among users of the ACCENT listserv. I followed the initital story up with another story and a blog post and an edition of ssnTVnews.
Last time I wrote about 6-E I told you that the NYBFAA was looking for input and would hold a discussion forum at its board of directors meeting on Feb. 10. They asked interested attendees to RSVP and said if you couldn't make it, your voice could still be heard by submitting your opinion in writing by the deadling... which is today.
Dale Eller, executive director of the NYBFAA told me that interest was pretty high so far.
Currently, the NYBFAA is preparing to hear arguments pro- and con- at its Feb. 10 board of directors meeting. Dale said that as of the Feb. 3 deadline for submission of written comments on Article 6-E there were 20 RSVPs to attend the Feb. 10 board of directors meeting and open discussion forum. He also said right now there were a dozen concerned security industry members who had voiced their opinion to him in writing.
“The best thing that has come from this experience is the fact that it got everyone talking about what was best for the industry,” Dale told me. “And how everyone could work together proactively to benefit the consumer, public safety and the dealers and monitoring companies.”
Now, most recently over the weekend, I got another letter to add to the ones I've received from Russ MacDonnell at Rapid Response and John Doyle at Doyle Security. This letter was from Jim McMullen at C.O.P.S. Monitoring. They've got four central stations now, and what that means--especially with their technique of active load sharing--is that if 6-E gets passed, they may have to license every single central station operator in all four centrals in the state of New York. Obviously not something that's that cost effective.
From the lettter:
As a general statement, we believe that the services our industry provides are of principal importance to consumers and C.O.P.S. supports all relevant and meaningful regulatory efforts that effectively protect their best interests. In reading the proposed language in article 6E, it is evident to me that the objectives of the legislative review committee are also of this intent and we appreciate your position.
Our experience with state level licensing has been nothing short of interesting. As a national monitoring company, we have amassed a great deal of knowledge from every state that requires licensing. We have encountered strenuous compliance requirements, testing material devoid of any monitoring-related materials, and mandates that we run criminal background checks for our employees in states 3,000 miles away from their homes. The sum of this experience has helped us realize that, even with good intentions, adopted standards do not necessarily protect the consumer the way they intended - nor in a way that even truly makes sense.
With that being said, it is the position of C.O.P.S. Monitoring that alarm dispatcher licensing should be pursued at the national level and not handled on a state-by-state basis. It is on this front that we plan to focus our greatest resources. I am hopeful that the potential exists to make significant progress on this endeavor in the coming months. We respectfully believe that a national standard for dispatchers that focuses on monitoring-related details would ultimately be in the best interests of all concerned parties – including consumers. We would like to see what unfolds by the end of this year resulting from our national efforts before putting any further energy into pursuing implementation of this particular bill.
CSAA president Ed Bonifas has also said that he feels the best route to take is for the industry to focus its energies on a national bill, rather than fight the battle out state-by-state.
Whatever your opinion, fire off an email to Dale Eller over at NYBFAA and get your voice heard.