Monthly Report for:
Oklahoma Alarm & Locksmith Advisory Board meeting for
Oklahoma Alarm & Locksmith Advisory Board met at
in room #809 of the Oklahoma
Department of Health.
Rick Brown called the meeting to
order at
minutes, and they were approved.
The Board moved right into the review of applicants for licenses .
Several applicants were approved when Steve
York voiced his concern about what he called
dirty applications.
He was wondering why the application were not cleaned up more before
they were brought to the Board for review?
What is considered a dirty
application : ( applications that have had multiple
categories marked
on their applications, but then have dropped them before or
after testing & review) There was
a lengthy discussion by the Board about this, and Matt Schue indicated they would work on
cleaning the applications up a little better before presenting
them to the Board for review.
The Board went on to consider approval of the rest of the
applications. Ron Edwards brought up
some concerns about one of the companies who were up
for approval. He had evidence for
Matt Schue of this company doing work
before their license was issued to them. Matt said that it
would be looked into after the meeting.
The Board moved to item #4 on the agenda. This was concerning
possible action on
ordinance changes. Matt Schue stated he
had receive several messages from a representative of
Message #1 : Stated that the City of
Message #2 :
After Matt was finished, He asked Steve Lutz to address the Board
on the matter.
At that time Matt & Steve went over the Statues & Laws
with the Board. Steve York made a motion
that this matter be sent to the Legal Department to correct the problem.
Then Rick Brown moved to new issues. There were none, so he moved
to old issues.
There were about 20 people in the audience. Many were there
concerning the
Matt Schue asked a gentleman in the
audience to come forward and to speak to the Board on his item
of concern. Mr. Higgenbottom came
to the front of the room and addressed the Board
directly. He is a
computer networker. He wanted to know why he was not allowed to
touch CCTV cameras that were hooked
to his network without a CCTV license? He voiced his
concerns about this and did not feel that this was fair or
right! He also stated to the Board there were
several other industries exempted from the law (tow truck drivers,
lumber yards ,and electricians) , and he wanted to
know why he could not be exempted from the law also?
(He claimed he had but one customer requiring this service, but I
do not think the board really believed him
on that point.)
Rick Brown & Matt Schue both told
him, if he touched the DVR or Cameras, he would have to get a license.
He left the room VERY UNHAPPY!
Point of concern here!! It was found out that Mr. Higgenbottom was a former OK State
Legislator. There could
be some major problems from him on this, So it will be
watched very closely!
It is advised, if you have friends in the Legislator,
to advise them it would not be fair to everyone else in the
State to allow this man to be exempt from the State Law!! If he is going to do the work, He needs to get
a
license like everyone else!
After Mr. Higgenbottom departed
the room. Drake McDonald suggested to the Board that all out of State
Companies submit a letter to the State in which
it says that they are NOT bidding or doing any jobs in our
State before they are licensed. This is mainly concerning alarm
companies.
Here is what was in the letter that Drake McDonald submitted to
the Board.
1. Applications received before the 10th of the month will be
reviewed by the State and presented to the
Committee the following month for consideration.
2. Once the Committee accepts the candidate's application during
the regular meeting they must take a test
on the Alarm Licensing Act and
sign the affidavit stating compliance.
3. With the passing of the exam the Committee will
perform the final review or vote and the candidate
appearance and license will be in 30 days.
Of course if they choose not to appear or miss the meeting their
application should be put on hold until
they meet our requirements. Or if they refuse to
appear at all then their application will be rejected and
they would not be able to re-apply for 6 or 12
months.
Any violators of the Act would result in a mandatory wait period
before re-applying.
If any more than 2 violations occur within 12 to 18 months then
they will not be able to re-apply at all or ever,
or a 3 year wait period, maybe more, depending on the
severity of the violation.
NOTE THESE ARE JUST THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. THEY ARE
NOT PART OF OR LAWS OR RULES!!
Next the Board moved to Discussion from the general public.
Mr. Holder senior asked the board about getting some State funding
for Alarm schooling. Steve York addressed this.
He said that several of the colleges have held these classes, but
have not been able to get enough students
interested in the classes to hold them.
There was a lot of discussion about the education issue by
the public and the Board.
A question was asked by someone in the room about what is done
when a complaint is filled with the State?
Matt Schue spoke up on this and
explained what steps to take to file a complaint. And what is done after a
complaint is filed.
Charles asked for a list of remote video trial location.
Rick brown moved for adjournment.
The next meeting will be on
The meeting ended at
Dusty Brummitt
Dusty's Lock & Key LLC