ISPLA’s Response to my 7/23/10 Blog; a very reasonable and rational explanation from Bruce Hulme’s point of view:
“What distinguishes ISPLA from NCISS, and most other national investigative and security professional associations, is reflected in the last three words of our name:
‘…for Legislative Action.’ That’s all we do, and we do it well.” – Bruce Hulme, ISPLA Director of Government Affairs
Date: August 23, 2010
To: Jan Tucker
From: ISPLA Executive Committee
Re: NCISS v. ISPLA
CC: CALI President and Board
This is in response to your blog posting dated July 23, 2010, and which was sent to ISPLA this past Friday. Hopefully, most of your concerns were answered by ISPLA in Burbank the day after your post. At the invitation of CALI president Chris Reynolds, Bruce Hulme, the ISPLA director of government affairs, appeared at his own personal expense before the CALI board on the afternoon of July 24. You were present and posed several questions, as did other board members-all of which were answered. The president of NCISS, who had made a presentation before your board that same morning, was also present during most of Mr. Hulme’s comments. Since you did not remain for the entire CALI board meeting, it is possible that you may not be aware of everything that occurred.
ISPLA was quite surprised to learn of your blog posting NCISS v. ISPLA. One would assume that the CALI membership is being lobbied to put pressure on the CALI board before it completes its deliberations. We understand that several steps are to be taken before CALI reaches a decision as to whether or not it will financially support ISPLA. First, CALI intends to perform due diligence on ISPLA. Second, it agreed to accept information from the CALI legislative chairwoman (who also serves as board chair of NCISS) against supporting ISPLA. Third, at that time the CALI legislative committee will make their recommendation to the board in support of or opposition to joining ISPLA and/or giving ISPLA financial support. The CALI board will deliberate on this issue at its September board meeting. In addition, subsequent to the board meeting in July, CALI’s president advised ISPLA that it could also submit additional material in writing should it choose to do so. As your blog comments and concerns may have been viewed by other CALI members, please feel free to share this with them.
Below are excerpts of your blog in italics, followed by ISPLA’s response.
“… ISPLA, an organization made up of former dissidents of NCISS”
The above statement is incorrect and misleading. ISPLA’s executive committee has two former NCISS presidents who are still active on the NCISS board. Other ISPLA executive committee members are for various reasons no longer members of the NCISS board. However, many have been NCISS members for a long time and are still NCISS members. They are also to a large degree responsible for the legislative accomplishments of NCISS over these many years. The successes of NCISS during its 35 years were gained in no small part by some of the same individuals who comprise the executive committee of ISPLA.
It was present ISPLA executive committee members who assisted in drafting NCISS testimony and exceptions in the 1994 Driver Privacy Protection Act for state licensed private investigators and security firms; testified before FTC hearings on consumer information privacy and before Congressional hearings including the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services on ID Theft and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act implementation, Ways and Means on Social Security number use and privacy issues, and Committee on the Judiciary on indigent defense issues; assisted in drafting prepared testimony before the U.S. Courts; and prepared written comments to the FTC regarding roles of the SSN as an authenticator and identifier and the private sector’s use of same in fraud prevention and ID theft for use by the President’s ID theft Task Force. That is just some of what we did before we formed ISPLA last year and created a PAC.
“As private investigators, we all need to see things from various perspectives. One way to view the situation of having rival professional organizations who both formulate their legislative agendas separately is to compare the situation of private investigators to other professions.”
I suggest that your analogies to chiropractors, dentists, and medical doctors may be akin to separate agendas and philosophies. However, in most cases the views of ISPLA and NCISS will be similar-but not always. ISPLA and NCISS are not the only legislative advocates for private investigators, security professionals and allied professions. ASIS, NASCO, NAPRS and NAPPS, like NCISS, have all retained lobbyists. Some might even posit that competition can be good. However, no member of the ISPLA executive committee has advocated that a member of NCISS drop their NCISS membership in favor of ISPLA. Most ISPLA members are affiliated with multiple professional associations; but if a colleague is going to choose just one, we hope it will be ISPLA. The discerning observer of the activities of NCISS since the formation of ISPLA will know that recommendations made to NCISS in the past by current ISPLA executive committee members have now been implemented by NCISS. The most obvious, of course, is the formation of a federal PAC-long strongly opposed by past and current NCISS leadership. Ironically, the greatest opposition to NCISS’ creating a political action committee came from NCISS board members who are past CALI presidents and who, we assume, have been involved in CALI-PAC.
“As we know from the fight over our MCE legislation, there are some issues where the legislature isn’t swayed by the influence of the smaller organization. There may be some critical mass where the legislature takes a smaller group seriously in a profession and when it doesn’t, subjectively determined by the particular facts. Obviously, since not one single vote went against MCE in the legislature, the influence of PICA’s opposition was between negligible and nil on the issue.”
ISPLA has no intention of interjecting its views on state issues unless they affect the best interests of ISPLA’s membership, whether they are state professional association members or individual members of ISPLA. Regarding the controversy over Mandatory Continuing Education: While serving as legislative director of NCISS in 2008, Bruce Hulme, the current ISPLA legislative director, was requested by the CALI legislative chairwoman (who was also serving as NCISS president at the time) to write a letter from NCISS in support of MCE. Mr. Hulme informed her at that time that MCE was an issue not supported by all of our investigative colleagues or by all state investigative professional associations. She was advised that such a letter of support would need prior NCISS board vote approval before it could be written. She sought not to seek such approval from the NCISS board, and it is doubtful that such would have been granted.
“So, the same situation we now face in California could be faced nationally if ISPLA gains credibility and membership at the expense of NCISS. It is far better that the industry speak with one voice rather than two when dealing with congress and executive branch regulatory agencies.”
ISPLA has already gained credibility. The fact that Congress, government agencies, and like-minded stakeholder organizations have sought our assistance validates our credibility, expertise, and knowledge of legislative and regulatory affairs. The current NCISS president recently announced that NCISS membership has actually increased to 1200 members. So, if such a statement is accurate, ISPLA’s emergence as a lobbying force would appear not to be hindering the growth of NCISS in these tough economic times. Furthermore, this past week NCISS posted to its members a release by the ASIS director of standards and guidelines seeking industry and individual volunteers on their Technical Committee to develop an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard. It is disingenuous to acknowledge such an initiative by that other professional association while questioning the good work of ISPLA and the benefits our profession derives. The current NCISS president is a longtime active member of ASIS and will be the recipient of a service award by them at their October conference in Dallas.
There are literally dozens of privacy, consumer and labor union advocacy groups opposing the interests of investigative and security professionals. At times they speak with one voice, and at times they do not. NCISS leaders would be delusional to ever think that just one voice speaks for our profession or that one organization has the capability of doing so. But ISPLA is singularly focused full-time on legislative and regulatory issues. NCISS and the other major professional associations are not. NCISS as well as associations such as ASIS, NASCO, NAPBS, NAPPS, USAPI, ACFE,
WAD, CII and INTELLENET, offers a wide range of member services including conventions and trade shows, newsletters, email listservs, membership directories, referral services, and the presentation of awards. ISPLA does not engage in such activities or offer such services. ISPLA is focused on legislative advocacy and PAC activities.
“For that matter, should we ever have the occasion to deal with the judiciary in a lawsuit for declaratory relief against legislation, imagine the nightmare of an organization competing with NCISS filing an amicus brief or complaint in intervention against the NCISS position. Nobody can guarantee that this is a scenario that can’t occur, anymore than anybody can guarantee that ISPLA would not wind up lobbying with a position opposed to that of NCISS and CALI.”
It was present ISPLA executive committee members as officers in NCISS, and over the objections of some current NCISS leaders, who pushed the organization to file an amicus brief. That brief was the Second Amendment case of DC v. Heller decided before the U.S. Supreme Court. ISPLA has recently been approached by legal representatives of a like-minded stakeholder to file an amicus brief in several states regarding detrimental state legislation that is also pending before Congress. Should ISPLA deem such legal action of benefit to the investigative and security professions, it will not hesitate to seek input and support from NCISS, as well as other associations.
ISPLA’s executive committee is not only experienced in handling federal and state legislative affairs; most have held leadership positions in national and state professional associations. Their experience in professional association management and legislative advocacy is unmatched; they have served in positions which include: three NALI national directors, the executive director of INTELLENET, two presidents and chairmen of the board of NCISS, eight board members of NCISS, six state association presidents, and the sole board member representing licensed private investigators serving on the IASIR board, of which the State of California is a member. Eighteen ISPLA members are or have been chairs of professional association legislative committees.
“To me, the best wisdom on the subject was stated a long time ago by Chief Little Turtle of the Miami Indians: “If our people fight one tribe at a time, we will be cut off like the fingers from a hand; but if we join together, we will make a powerful fist.”
Your above statement may be interpreted in more than one way. For example, the good chief’s analogy to the five fingers of the hand making a powerful fist could just as easily be stating that the tribes which should be joining together are the tribes of ISPLA, ASIS, NASCO, NAPRS, NAPPS and NCISS. ISPLA has already been working with these tribes. We offered our political action services on several occasions to NCISS at little or no costs; we alerted ASIS, NASCO and NCISS to fast-breaking new federal legislation about which they had no prior knowledge; and we worked closely with their respective retained lobbyists to gain a positive result on legislation which, if passed, would severely impact investigators and security firms, including members of CALI, who utilize surreptitious video recording.
ISPLA would welcome CALI as an association member and would be grateful for any financial contribution towards our efforts they may wish to give. They would be joining 18 other professional associations that recognize the good work of ISPLA for the benefit of investigative and security professionals in the United States.
There is another quote from a famous American Indian chief and military tactician-Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Indians, appearing before Congress in the 19th Century. And it is a quote you will never hear from any ISPLA leader regarding either NCISS (if they continue their current campaign against ISPLA) or Congress: “I will fight no more, forever.”
Tags: Bruce Hulme, CALI, ISPLA, Jan Tucker, NCISS, PICA, private investigation, private investigators