New Mexico Security Blog by Robb Hamic

Albuquerque Security- Has Anything Really Changed in 2 1/2 years?

December 13, 2010- Albuquerque, NM-  I think that many people who are in the industry would agree that not much has changed.  It is not because of a lack of information provided to state agencies or lack of funds collected byt he governing agency, NM Private Investigator's Board.

Unfortunately the same problems exist in the Albuquerque Security Industry that have always been here:

• Illegal and unlicensed security companies
• Unlicensed and guards with criminal backgrounds
• Uninsured Albuquerque Security companies
• Ambivalence on the part of licensing authorities
• Lack of consumer awareness
• Grossly negligent companies continually in the Albuquerque security industry

If a security guard can be arrested for 11 felony counts, while he is on duty and the state does nothing to investigate this occurrence- there is something very wrong.  The NM Private Investigator's Board can't say that they weren't notified, I did it myself.  Who cares?  Apparently, not the state of New Mexico.

Psychological Evaluations for guards

Psychological Evaluations

By: Anthony J. Landavazo

VP – OverWatch Security, LLC

 

I spent a bit of time today contacting psychologists in Albuquerque, and Santa Fe. I spoke with one who was very knowledgeable and spent a good deal of time discussing the new MMPI-2RF tests that level 3 security guards are required to take.

She stated amongst other things, that the MMPI-2RF is a psychological test that determines an individual’s ability to make good decisions, their ability to control their impulses, and paints a general picture of their overall mental health. She stated that most mentally stable people should have no problem passing this evaluation.

She did offer one tip. Be completely honest. The test is also designed to pick up if you’re lying or “faking good”, and that if your test results show that you’re lying the results will be invalid and you will have to re-take the test.

She was very clear about the test, what to expect, and how long the whole process takes (about a week). She did discuss cost, however you should contact her yourself as it may vary.

She was very professional, and we look forward to working with her.

I’d like to give her name and contact information to perhaps save some of you out there the headache of calling multiple psychologists.

Kayt Whitebird Orange, PH.d.  (505) 927-5770

Guard licensing can be confusing..

I received an e-mail form a guard asking about licensing and he mentioned that he was working in the industry for a number of years before the newer law passed.  He was trying to figure out if he was licensed and what amount of training was required for each level of license.  I sent him this e-mail in response.

Sir,

The licensing situation is confusing.  Basically- if you were licensed as a guard effective July 1, 2007- you got a "free pass" and grandfathered into a Level 1 guard status.  The different levels differentiate the level of training and weapons a guard can carry.  Level 2 certification requires a lot more sit down class room hours and individual training on any implements you wish to carry, handcuffs, OC spray, baton or Taser.  The level 2 card will have the implements that you are certified to carry.  Each weapon requires more hours (4-8 hrs. each).  Level 3 or Firearms requires more training still.  

If you were a firearms carrying guard and licensed as such (effective July 1, 2007)- you will be grandfathered into a L3 slot, which would be good.  Check out the state's site and check you license status history and the training requirements.

Guards can call the New Mexico Private Investigator's Board to check license status and ask questions.

http://www.rld.state.nm.us/PrivateInvestigations/index.html

Taser certification class for security guards in Albuquerque Thursday October 2. Come get certified!

Summit Security & Investigation is offering a Certified Taser Operator course on Thursday October 2, 2008 form 9 A.M.- 5 P.M.

This class will meet the state requirement for a Taser "add on" to a Level 2 or Level 3 certification. Students will learn the effects of a Taser Device on a human, safe operation, handling and deployment of a Taser Device in Law Enforcement/Security careers or civilian usage.

This certification class with be taught by a Taser International certified Law Enforcement Instructor and graduates will receive accreditation from Taser International and a certificate of completion that can be provided to the state of New Mexico for the "add on rating." Students will actually fire Tasers in class and learn why Taser is a viable option to security personnel.

Classes will be held at the Summit Security Training academy located at 2825 E Broadbent Pkwy. NE. 505-255-60633

Cost of this Certification is $100 for Summit Security Employees and $125 for other security personnel. Summit Employees will have the cost of training deducted from pay. Space is limited to 25 students and RSVP and advance payment is required to attend. Credit cards accepted.

RSVP by e-mailing me as soon as possible.

***Employees of Legit, Elyte, United, Mesa, American, Advance, Advantage, Casados, Avalanche Security or On-stie Protection are not invited to this or any other training provided by this organization. Employment must be verified prior to the class by Summit Security staff***

Come on New Mexico RLD- You have to be kidding!

Isn't it just like New Mexico to try to push a completely flawed law and regulations through the system?

GIVE ME A BREAK!

THE ENTIRE SECURITY INDUSTRY IN NEW MEXICO IS AGAINST THESE RIDICULOUS TRAINING REGULATIONS AND THE SHORTSIGHTED NEW REGULATIONS! NEW MEXICO RLD CAN'T EVEN ENFORCE THE REGULATIONS THAT THEY HAVE HAD ON THE LAW BOOKS FOR DOZENS OF YEARS.

Those of us who care about this industry need to be in attendance. The "Board" is going to vote in a prescribed way, of course. BUT- the "Board" has never represented the New Mexico Security industry. The "Board" is still vacant one position. The "Board" member that the Governor appointed in the late Butch Cassady's place wasn't even associated with the security or investigation field! Seriously. The law requires that the vacancy be appointed with a private investigator licensee. The guy that was appointed by the Governor's office wasn't an investigator. How could this happen? I thought Superintendent of RLD made the recommendations anyway...? What's next? Maybe they will appoint a unlicensed security company owner under indictment to the Board. Maybe that guy you are investigating for using fake documents to get his license. That would be a GREAT choice. This entire industry is disenfranchised!

The New Mexico Private Investigations Advisory Board will hold a Rule
Hearing on August 20, 2008 that will convene at 10:00 am.

Following the Rule Hearing the board will convene a regular board meeting to
adopt the rules and take care of regular business.

The meetings will be held at the Regulation and Licensing Department, 2550
Cerrillos Road, 2nd floor, Rio Grande Room, Santa Fe, NM.

NM COPSS letter by Fred Behnken about the poorly written and irrelevant new security laws. New Mexico Security

NMCOPSS News

This is an email our Liaision Frederick (Fred) J. Behnken sent to
Representative Janice E. Arnold-Jones, House District 24.

Janice,

Here is my statement to the AG that you can forward to Al Lama.

If you want me to help go to the AG I will to answer his questions. There
are plently of people who will come forward. I can give you a list of
security company owner names who will come forward. They are ready to move
to litigation.

The problem is that I am not in a position to have the complete picture of
what RLD is doing. They havn't any numbers about the program. The law
doesn't require any accountability. So how can they say that everthing is
going great? They have nothing to base that evaluation. They don't know.
They are saying what Richardson wants to hear. Its dishonest and lacks the
accountability expected. How can a program be accountable run like this--
based on a bad law? There is no accountability or control of the program
at RLD because the law is a bad law.

When I went and inspected the training programs there were only a 12
programs from 130 companies. How come they have not gotten closer to one
hundred percent complaince after over two years? This to me is an indicator
the program is a failure. Companies who do not have a training program or
proposed way of having their officers trained should have their licenses
revolked- how can they comply with the law? Where is RLD on the issue- doing
nothing.

These are the major obvious legal problems with the security law.

1. The law violates the state consititution in reguards to the regulation of
(arms, weaponry) firearms. With the most recent US supreme court ruling in
the public conciousness, allowing a law suit will not be a good public
relations move for the state.

2. Age discrimination, 21 year old abitrary age requirment discriminating
against 18-21 year olds many who are fighting and dying over seas doing the
same thing. They come back and can't get a job as a security officer?

3. Routine performance requirements and for RLD are non existant. Nothing
makes the state support the industry. Nothing new in the law will change
the pattern of bottlenecks and delays in licensing and enforcement of the
law. Support, structure and logistics for carrying out the law have not been
written into the law. serious harm is being done to the industry, currently.

4. The PI Board is completely inadequate in its selection and size to
accomplish running of this higher intensity law proposed. The board is not
elected and chosen from the industry. The board does not represent the
industry because it is not elected by the industry. The current board is
controlled by the governor who has less interest in the benifit of the
industry. The current board has not been screened through a democratic
process and currently has absolutely no credibility with the industry. On
numerous occasions board members have had complaints and invesitgations
filed against them. They have been petition several times to resign from
licensees.A quorum is not possible with a two person board representing the
security sector.

5. No scientifc validation of the proposed training program has been made.
In court the program will be destroyed with testimony from experts in the
education field( that I know). it does not cross reference with a job task
anyalsis.The program has been challenged by numerous professionals in the
industry and on top of it, RLD has just decided to make verbal changes to
the program that violate the law.

RLD and the state government in general do not have any working evaluation
of what it is doing, there are no performance objectives and statistics. The
path the state government is taking is extremely dangerous to the public. My
observations have seen guard hiring slowed down and three companies that I
use to work with close up. My security training of contract companies has
dropped to almost nothing( a few guards( + - 6) a month).

You can not discount the need for the contract security, if the industry is
reduced, there will be an increase in load on the public sector and an
economic disaster for the business community. Right now the state has no
control over what it is doing and no proof that this law is making the state
safer. It is dangerous waters. The right thing to do is put an immediate end
to the law and deregulate the industry.

Many of the problems that are being brought to the public attention recently
in the media should not be confused with laws that are not related to
security company regulation directly. Workmans comp fraud, prosititution,
operating without business licenses, federal contract fraud all have
protections in place and laws that apply are not Regulating and Licensing
issues directly. Enforcement of current laws jurisdiction in those areas
specifically are the problem.

The process of the development of the security law was flawed. Evidence does
not show that specialized regulation of the security industry is needed, at
this time. There are enough protections for the public and the industry
already in place, if those were enforced.

With this law great harm to the industry and the public is being done.

I think many people involved in the situation are in a state of denile and
distraction as to the reality of the situation. Rep Janice Arnold Jones has
done a good job in recognizing the process error that created this law. She
is doing the right thing in petitioning for an immediate injunction to the
security law.

Fred Behnken
Security Consultant and DPS Instructor

New Mexico RLD maintains control over the training curriculum but has no authority to certify the instructors?

I sent an e mail to Linda Trujillo, Depty Director for Boards and Commissions recently because I hadn't received a confirmation for my level 3 instructor rating and Steve Herrera, the new Board Administrator, didn't return my phone call from last Friday.  Read below for her response. 

It puzzles me...

From: hamicrw@aol.com [mailto:hamicrw@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 9:54 AM
To: Trujillo, Linda, RLD
Cc: Billrehm@comcast.net
Subject: level 3 instructor status

Ms. Trujillo:

I finally had a chance to review a letter sent to my Operations Manager, Joe Cook, dated May 1, 2008.  It states that my firm's Level 1 security guard training curriculum has been approved.  I have previously submitted two applications together with my qualifications and resume to become certified as a level 3 instructor for the newly required security training.

Have I been approved as a level 3 instructor?  I can't find any correspondence stating that the approval was made.  Mr. Cook informed initially that it looked as if I was approved after he received the letter of May 1 from the Board.  It has been many weeks since these applications were made.

I also need to make you aware that the published (web site and telephone directory) number for the NM PI Board (505-476-4650) is routed to Donna Tafoya's voicemail, which states that she is out of the office "for the next several weeks."  There is no other published number to contact personnel at the PI Board.  I contacted Boards and Commissions and asked to talk to Steve Herrera on last Friday around lunch time.  I left a message and he has not returned my phone call.  Myself and others in this industry are seriously concerned about this Board's lack of communication and availability.  It is unreasonable for a state Board to have no effective contact numbers or ability for citizens or others concerned to reach it.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Robb Hamic

She responds to me...

-----Original Message-----
From: Trujillo, Linda, RLD <Linda.Trujillo12@state.nm.us>
To: hamicrw@aol.com
Cc: Billrehm@comcast.net; vallejos, andrew, RLD <andrew.vallejos@state.nm.us>; Oliver, Stephen, RLD <Stephen.Oliver@state.nm.us>; Herrera, Steve , RLD <Steve.Herrera@state.nm.us>
Sent: Tue, 13 May 2008 2:30 pm
Subject: RE: level 3 instructor status

Dear Mr. Hamic:

We have reviewed the training material submitted and only have a Level 1 outline for Summit, which has been approved.

You mention submitting two applications. I am uncertain what applications you submitted. Please provide more information so I can address that concern.

We do have your resume, but the department is not approving instructors. Companies who provide in-house training have been asked to submit a resume for the person conducting the training only for our records. The department’s authority to approve curriculum is found in 16.48.2.17, 16.48.18 and 16.48.2.19 and does not include authority to certify instructors. “(b) an in-house training program provided by a licensed private patrol company using a curriculum approved by the department”

Thank you for bring the phone number to our attention. With Dona being out of the office we have hired a new temp to answer her phone. Additionally, her voice mail directs the caller to contact Steve, provides his phone number and asks callers not to leave a message. The number on the website is the PI main phone number and is linked to three phones. It is not efficient for the board to change the pattern of the phone numbers in Dona’s absence. We all hope that Dona will return, but if her leave is extended we will keep a temp in that position. The temp is answering the phone and retrieving messages.

Your concerns are important to the department. The best way for you to get your concerns addressed is to contact the board administrator, Steve Herrera at (505) 476-4909. If Steve does not return your call please contact his team leader Stephen Oliver at (505) 476-4762.

Respectfully,

Linda M. Trujillo, Esq.

Deputy Director

Boards & Commissions

Regulation & Licensing Department

Phone: 505-476-4602

This is my last response to her....

Ms. Trujillo:

I submitted the "applications" in the form of two letters, resumes and training credentials sent to the Board.  I don't understand the thinking in RLD having control of the curriculum and not the instructors.  I'm not sure that was made clear to any of the licensees or employees previously.

The sequence for reaching the PI Board through a absent person's voicemail is neither helpful or efficient.  As of Friday it had no forwarding instructions and was in Ms. Tafoya's own voice.  Apparently someone took the time to make the change recently. 

I will assume that by forwarding this e-mail to Steven Oliver he will understand that Mr. Herrera still hasn't returned my call.  Honestly, it is becoming a considerable waste of time to attempt contact the Board or members of RLD.  Others share my concerns as you know.

Sincerly,

Robb Hamic   

---

New Mexico Private Investigator's Board member's company information....

New "training regulations" were passed into law recently.  Two Private Investigator Board Members, Butch Cassidy and Gurutej Khalsa had almost exclusive input into the new training regulations.  These members did not solicit any Private Investigator or Private Patrol Operator (security company owner) to be a part of the formation of the new training regulations.  Were they qualified to craft these training regulations? 

Khalsa is a principal of AKAL Security, a large

New Mexico

based firm that provides security for private and government clients across the

United States

.  Please see the excerpt from the Washington Post below: 

Akal agreed to "pay the United States $18 million to resolve allegations that it violated the terms of its contract to provide trained civilian guards at eight U.S. Army bases," the Justice statement said, adding that some of the company's guards did not get proper firearms and other training and that the company "failed to satisfy" man-hour requirements.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/government-inc/2007/08/watching_the_guards_1.html

AKAL operates a large security guard training academy in

Northern New Mexico

at its company headquarters.  It may have other training academies in other locations.

Butch Cassidy owns Pro Force, Inc., a

Silver

City

based security and investigation firm.  He formed Pro Force Training Center LLC on September 9, 2005.  Pro Force and University of New Mexico (UNM) entered into an agreement to provide the security guard training curriculum that was mandated by law effective March 7, 2008.    Leah Kerr is responsible for the UNM training and she states that UNM is partnering with Pro Force and that they are the only ones qualified to do the training on April 16, 2008.  We asked her for a syllabus or schedule of classes, she states that classes won't be ready till May 5th, despite the fact that the board has made these levels and training effective March 7th.  The price of these required classes is quoted at $3,000 per guard.

The partnership between Pro Force, Cassidy as owner, and UNM ( a state run school) raises questions of unethical behavior of Cassidy in the formation of the training standards and Board votes that were made concerning the training requirements.  Many security company employees and company owners complain about the unfair situation and two stories are published in the Albuquerque Journal.  (See earlier blog posts)

Cassidy resigned his position at the Board.

Cassidy and his firm were involved in a situation where he felt that a city police department in Southern New Mexico were creating a monopoly by offering security services where and his company could not compete.  He filed a law suit.  See the excerpt of a news story and link to the case below:

Security guard takes on police Suit claims

Silver

City

police created monopoly

The Police Department is "actively competing in the private sector" by providing funeral escorts and security services and transporting money and people for a local bank, said Butch Cassidy of Pro Force Investigations and Security Services Inc.

"This is a continuing thing. What you have is something that is constant it's not just an event," he said. "They're costing me money by competing with me in the same industry and they're a government entity."

Cassidy has filed a tort claim for $86,200, claiming lost revenue from January 1998 to the present. The complaint alleges the department is offering services at "a fixed price which is less than industry standards (and) has created a monopoly in

Silver

City

.

http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/020500/reg_0205000042.shtml

Private Investigator Board Member Butch Cassidy resigns!

The New Mexico Private Investigator Board is going through many changes.  Longtime Board Member Butch Cassidy resigned his position on the Board recently.  The Board, which is regulated by RLD, made significant changes in its administrative staff.  The former Board Administrator, Mary James was replaced along with her assistant, Donna Tafoya.  New RLD complaint investigators are being sought at this time.

Check out the link to the PI Board web site for more information.

http://www.rld.state.nm.us/PrivateInvestigatorPolygraph/index.html

Additional information about the New Mexico PI Board can be found at www.callsummit.com.

Article published in the Albuquerque Journal- April 16

Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Training Rules Upset Security Companies
By T.J. Wilham
Copyright © 2008 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer
    Some security companies are crying foul over new state regulations that require new security guards to go through dozens of hours of training.
    Opponents say a member of the New Mexico Private Investigator and Polygraph Board, which was involved in coming up with the new regulations, owns a company that trains security guards and will profit from the training.
    A public hearing on the new rules will be held at 9 a.m. today at the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department in Santa Fe.
    Local security companies say the new rules will cost thousands of dollars per guard.
    "It's not the actual training I have a problem with— security guards and companies need to have more training," said Shawn Ducat, a director for Summit Security in Albuquerque.
    Ducat said he is concerned that one board member would profit from a rule he helped pass.
    The board member, Butch Cassady, owner of Pro Force Investigations and Security in Silver City, acknowledged that his company could benefit from the new rules. But, he said, so would every company that offers security guard training.
    He also said little would change for security companies under the new rules. Companies can offer their own training as long as their curriculum is approved by the state, Cassady said.
    Cassady said his school is automatically approved, because it's recognized by the New Mexico Higher Education Department.
    "We didn't do this so Butch Cassady could make another dollar," Cassady said. "Whether Butch Cassady makes another dollar is up in the air. What we want to do is make sure the individual is getting the training he needs to work and protect the people of New Mexico."
    Legislation passed in 2007 required that all security guards be individually licensed through the state and complete certain state-approved training. The Legislature created three levels of licenses for security guards.
    At minimum, the law required guards to complete 16 hours of training before serving on a post for their first time. That training must be approved by the state.
    Before, security guards were licensed through their companies, and the only training they were required to obtain was firearms instruction if they carried a gun.
    The new law gave the New Mexico Regulation and Licensing Department an October deadline to set up the training guidelines for each level.
    The department missed the deadline by six months and in March passed a series of emergency rules to comply with the law.
    The board Cassady sits on was involved in coming up with those rules.
    The emergency rules require 102 hours of state-approved training for the highest level of license. The minimum level requires 16 hours of training.
    Three hearings, including the one scheduled for today, will be conducted before the Regulation and Licensing Department passes a final version of the rules in August.
    Cassady said it would cost $1,000 per level to get the training, according to minutes from a July 2007 meeting of the Private Investigator and Polygraph Board.
    The University of New Mexico contacted Cassady's company after the emergency rules were passed in March, and the two have been working on a contract that would provide the state-required security guard training.
    "We are working on a contract. I am not going to lie about it," Cassady said. "They contacted me. They could have gone to anybody."
    State Regulation and Licensing Superintendent Kelly O'Donnell told the Journal she didn't think there was a conflict of interest with Cassady's involvement because he is not an exclusive provider of the training.
    She said Regulation and Licensing has already approved the training curriculum for several companies. She also said she is not going to approve any rules that require security companies or guards to pay thousands of dollars for the first level of training.
    "I have the final say, not the board (Cassady sits on)," she said. "This regulation is intended to protect public safety without damaging small business.
    "I am hoping that the private marketplace will provide the training at an affordable cost," she said. "If not, the state will assist in providing the training. We will do whatever we have to do to make the training affordable."

Albuquerque Journal Editorial on Problems with Security Training Regulations

Many licensed security company owners disagreed with the new law concerning required training.  This editorial was published a couple of weeks ago.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Please Step Away From The Security Regs, Sir

By

    Last year the Legislature created three levels of licensing for security
guards, each requiring state-approved training.
    Better training is a good thing. Nobody wants a repeat of the 1995 fatal
choke hold in Coronado Center's Sears parking lot over a shoplifted power tool.
But having someone who makes a living training security guards take part in
determining the requirements isn't so good.
    As owner of Pro Force Investigations and Security in Silver City, Butch
Cassady's business could be boosted by the new rules. As a member of the state
Private Investigator and Polygraph Board, he could have a hand in shaping those
rules. That's an obvious conflict of interest, and it's ridiculous for state
Regulation and Licensing Superintendent Kelly O'Donnell to say it doesn't exist
because other companies in the state provide training.
    O'Donnell says "I have the final say, not (Cassady's) board." But Regulation
and Licensing has already approved the training curriculum for several companies
based on board recommendations.
    The bottom line is Cassady provides security guard training for a fee, and
his wallet can only benefit when all security guards have to get it— so far
between 16 and 102 hours of it. He should have recused himself from the debate
and the vote. He should certainly recuse himself in future deliberations.
    Two more public hearings are slated before Regulation and Licensing passes a
final version of the rules in August. Those rules should be established by
people who have no vested interest in them.