Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Criminal Justice Services
 
Board
Department of Criminal Justice Services
 
chapter
Regulations Relating to Private Security Services [6 VAC 20 ‑ 171]
Action Comprehensive Review Private Security Services Regulations
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 10/24/2012
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
10/23/12  6:16 pm
Commenter: Martha Clancy

Regulatory Review
 

 

PSS Reg Review I

 
       Thank you and your staff for the diligence evidenced in the development of these proposed Regulations. We appreciate your listening to previous suggestions and incorporating them in this proposal. Thank you too for the restraint you have shown in setting the fees. As always, there are additional recommendations and comments listed below. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

      To begin, some general comments that arise from a basic review and discussion with many others affected by the proposed Regs:

~  the changes to the Regs are overwhelming in many areas - at this time, in this economy, they are often too demanding, in some instances they are overly burdensome;

~  at a time when state government, including DCJS, has diminishing resources - these Regs require increasing  demands on the regulator;  and

~  the regulations are not simplified - they would become more complex.

Issues which must be considered in this analysis include:

~  reasons for change - under the current Regs, is someone being harmed?  - and how do these changes strengthen the regulatory purpose - to protect the public safety and welfare,

~  the risk of becoming overly-regulated,

~  current economic challenges - both to businesses and individuals - many of our community are low-paid workers - proposed training will have large cost increases and time commitments attached,  and

~  are resources for enforcement of new requirements realistically available to the Department under current conditions?  

 

               Please see continuation.  Thank You.
 

 

 

 

CommentID: 24356