Brian Crist writes that expanded licensing requirements would be unfair to some security professionals.
To the Editor:
In the new state legislative session, lawmakers, mostly Democrats, are hawking bills concerning security personnel -- to the detriment of some hard-working New Jersey citizens.
First is Senate Bill 884, which expands the scope of security guard registration. This proposal directly affects numerous licensed security professionals and possibly would impose a financial hardship on them.
The bill requires security guards who work directly for private employers to complete the requirements of the Security Officer Registration Act (SORA). As I know it, contract security firms require their personnel to maintain state licenses at their own expense. If in-house security guards (those not supplied by outside security contractors) must be licensed, shouldn't the employer be required to pay the licensing cost?
Also, under this bill, the word "SECURITY" would have to be printed on the back of any uniform shirt or outer garment for armed security officers. I understand that law enforcement has begun displaying words like "POLICE or "SHERIFF" on uniforms. But, this would detract from the professional appearance security guards must project to employers, customers and guests.
As a 19-year industry professional, I feel that SORA licensing should not be required for in-house security, although the same standards should apply. That is, those barred from SORA licenses should also be ineligible to work for private employers as security guards.
A second Senate bill, S-86, creates a Special Law Enforcement Officer (SLEO) Class III. Currently, there are only two classes: Class I has limited authority while on duty but cannot carry a firearm. Class II can exercise full police power while on duty, including firearm use.
Under S86, a Class III officer would have the same powers as Class II, but would be limited to the grounds of a school, and to emergencies off the grounds. Class III would be open only to retired law enforcement officers age 65 and older.
In my opinion, Class III should be available to all armed security professionals in New Jersey.
Brian A. Crist
Pennsville
Send a letter to the editor of South Jersey Times at sjletters@njadvancemedia.com