YOUR LETTERS

Jul 1, 2004 12:00 PM

Guard Problems: Look for Reasons

Having served in the military and police departments as a training instructor and operation evaluator, it always amazes me to see articles adverse to contract security personnel (“Nuclear facilities may eliminate use of private guards,” In The News, June 2004). Yes, the problems noted in the article about a lack of training and failed exercises are normally true. What is missing are the reasons this occurs. From local government, state, and federal bids, almost everyone always takes the lowest bidder. Seldom if ever is wage determination utilized in a bid that would determine the requirements of what a security officer should be paid to perform the duties expected of them. Even more so, just getting a client, federal or otherwise, to pay a cost-of-living wage is rare. Training needs to be equated into the bid cost — and if not, obviously, it will not be given. Strike military units fail training exercises so this in itself should not be a shock. Many private companies can provide the level of training and quality of security officers needed to perform the tasks required. There again, another problem arises as our government presses to hire hub agencies, who generally can ill-afford to provide even the qualified instructors and management experienced to supervisor and maintain a contract of this nature. The bid structure must be overhauled in order to obtain satisfactory results, and a good RFP outlining all requirements to include an adequate wage must be generated in support of the contract to be performed. This allows a private contractor to recruit and hire adequate personnel with the required skills beginning from a project manager down to the entry control officer position. Until quality of service and wage determination become part of the bid process, the end results will always be the same regardless of whether the service is by private contractors, military, or federal police. This is not rocket science, as with any successful operation, planning and follow-through bring successful results. It is still by far more cost effective for a private contractor to operate the security program than a federal agency.
— COLIN R. ELLISON,
Smith Protective Services Inc.

The Downside of the Bidding Process

Your article is on target (“Why The Public Thinks Security Lacks Credibility,” Editor's Letter, May 2004). Not only does the government use the lowest bidder, but they usually want them on site with clearances tomorrow. This allows little time for planning, recruiting, screening, hiring, training and uniform fitting and appearance check. The next biggest issue is “guard orders” — are these written for each post, and each shift and do the guards actually know what to do and who to call?

Supervision is another issue, and the guard supervisor is usually just one of the boys who gets 20 cents more per hour.

I could go on for hours, but my work limits the response. Good work and thanks for the article.
— HARRY RENSEL, Arlington, Va.

Wonder if Anybody Notices

Excellent editorial this issue (“Why The Public Thinks Security Lacks Credibility,” Editor's Letter, May 2004).

The fact of the matter is that, when security providers do their jobs well, nothing happens. And nothing is not newsworthy. I have yet to see a single report about all of the airplanes that haven't been hijacked, burglaries that haven't been committed, disgruntled ex-employees who haven't come back to commit workplace violence or shoplifters who have decided not to steal from a store with surveillance equipment. Like millions of other professions (meat inspectors, fire marshals, air traffic controllers, etc.), our best efforts result in an invisible result.

To paraphrase one of my favorite cartoons, “Doing a good job in security is like wetting your pants in a dark suit. You get a warm feeling, but nobody notices.”
— PAUL CHANDLER, Secura Key, Chatsworth, Calif.

Time To Break Down Barrier

I am an “end user entity” and too am frustrated by the time delay between quality equipment being read about and then finding someone who knows anything about it, let alone getting it to realistically be purchased and installed (“What Happens In Vegas Won't Stay in Vegas,” Editor's Letter, April 2004). Breaking down that barrier would certainly enhance safety and security and have the added “bonus” of staff knowing or rather believing that what is being used really is capable of doing what is said. (Oh yeah, and be a money maker!) I, too, am tired of equipment and reps that talk but can't walk. Breakdowns, poor quality, systems with the bugs not all worked out, and untrained techs seem to be the norm, unfortunately.

Anyhow, with a few more years to go until retirement maybe things will get better … I trust that they will. It would surely be encouraging in an industry that is seemingly able to do so much.
— LYLE RUTTER, Muinsing, Mich.

About Systems and Programs

Very nice Editor's Letter this month (“A Systematic Approach … Broadly Defined,” Editor's Letter, March 2004). You are correct that security today is more than just hardware, software and equipment. We at Sako & Associates have been using the term “program” to describe the integration of architecture, technology and operations. While our primary business is developing security systems designs for the built environment, we find that we must be involved in developing the operations capabilities of the client or developing the new operations for the client.
— LAURIS V. FREIDENFELDS, Arlington Heights, Ill.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

Your opinions are very important to us at Access Control & Security Systems. To offer comments or suggestions, please send an e-mail to editor Larry Anderson at landerson@primediabusiness.com. Please be sure to include “Letter to the Editor” in the subject line.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2012 Penton Media Inc.

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue