Article on Lo Jack Bill
Your article and headline “Car Theft Project Foes Pay $29,000 to Assemblymen Who Killed Bill” (Dec. 5) raise serious questions about your diligence and fairness.
The headline immediately leaves the readers with the impression that the 52 assemblymen who sided with our point of view were corrupted by a political contribution of $29,000. What’s more, on a number of occasions we have informed you that our position and views reflect the opinions of the Vehicle Security Assn., which as you know is a national organization representing manufacturers, distributors, dealers and installers. You have received written communication from me and from VSA in regard to this matter, yet you failed to acknowledge it.
Prior to the publication of this article you talked to me on the phone on several occasions. I gave you substantive and detailed information that you chose not to communicate. Instead you opted for cheap-shot sensationalism and misleading innuendoes.
You elected to omit pertinent and important details. Specifically, I mentioned to you on at least two occasions that at a meeting with Sen. Davis and his aide I offered to withdraw Clifford Electronics from eligibility to participate in the process proposed by SB 1900. I explained to you in great detail why, in my opinion, SB 1900 was an ill-conceived bill that promoted monopoly and was against the consumer’s interest. In fact, I drew a corollary with the cellular telephone market. Would it have been tolerable if the same company that won the marketing rights for the cellular market in Los Angeles had demanded and received sole marketing rights for the telephone systems installed in the consumer vehicle based on the legislation shielding them from disclosure of the format of communication between their switching gear and the cellular phone in the consumer’s car?
You are keenly aware that the bill further had the onerous stipulation that all car dealers in the state of California must offer the system as an option, and should they fail to do so they would have committed a crime.
Why didn’t you find it necessary to write about that? You have interviewed an ex-Lo Jack officer who told you that the system, by its character and structure, in fact leads to a monopolistic stance, yet you have chosen to be silent on that matter.
On other matters where you had specific facts you have chosen to be nebulous. In the text of your article you have stated that, “In late summer--it’s unclear exactly when--a few of the firms met to plot strategy, including making campaign contributions.” You may recall that I clearly told you that we had met after the end of the legislative sessions.
The article states: “C. Michael Daley, Lo Jack’s president . . . denied, however, that the Davis bill was designed to benefit Lo Jack. It was a generic bill, he said Friday.” Yet Lo Jack’s own publication, The Lo Jack Tracker, dated Winter ‘88, said, “California State Sen. Ed Davis announced legislation to fund the Stolen Vehicle Network based on Lo Jack technology for the state of California. Moreover, a letter from the . . . San Francisco chief of police to Sen. Ed Davis, dated April 12, 1988, called the bill ‘the proposed Lo Jack system to track stolen vehicles.’ ” Does this sound generic?
ZE’EV DRORI
Chatsworth
Drori is the president of Clifford Electronics .
