Common use of Issues Panel Clause in Contracts

Issues Panel. The issues panel was facilitated by Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Co-Chair, Private Sector Liaison Committee, IACP, and included the following participants: • Xxx Xxxxxx, Chairman, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. • Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Chief, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department • Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Immediate Past President, IACP • Xxxx Xxxxxx, Director, Global Security, Xxxxx and XxXxxxxx Companies, Inc. • Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxx and Professor, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern Uni- versity • Xxx Xxxxxxxx, Intelligence Operations Specialist, Office of Law Enforcement Coordination, FBI • Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Superintendent, Indiana State Police Department • Xxxx Xxxxxx, Manager, Global Security Issues and Strategy, Global Security Department, Exxon Mobil The summary below, constructed around questions posed by the facilitator, combines observations made by both panel members and audience members. What is the current status of the relationship between public law enforcement and private security? It may be more negative than positive. There is much role confusion between the public and private sectors—for example, confusion about what will be done in an emergency. If a company’s plant suffers an explosion, it may immediately be declared a crime scene by police, and then the company’s security staff cannot respond as needed. Likewise, in the post-9/11 era, law enforcement officers show up to conduct risk assessments but often are not as knowledgeable about them as private security is. Relations are mixed. A city may simultaneously have some outstanding partnerships but also some counterproductive relationships. 9/11 helped in relationship building. The true measure of success, however, is whether a partnership accomplishes something and is lasting. Community policing calls on law enforcement to develop relationships with various sec- tors of the community. Police departments meet regularly with local clergy, business groups, neighborhood associations, and other groups. They do not seem to meet regu- larly with groups of corporate security directors and managers of security businesses. Given law enforcement’s stretched resources and additional burdens, there is no better time to develop new relationships with private security and find ways to work together. For the most part, the public sector tends to have the threat information, and the private sector tends to have control over the vulnerable sites. Law enforcement’s capacity to provide homeland security may be more limited than is generally acknowledged. What obstacles keep law enforcement from working with private security? Information sharing is difficult. Corporations do not feel they receive timely information from police, and they also fear that information they give to the police may end up in the newspaper. Police fear that the corporate sector may not treat law enforcement informa- tion discreetly. Other issues include respect (that is, law enforcement’s lack of respect for security), trust, training differentials, and competition. A further obstacle is that the two sides may not realize the extent of their common goals. Law enforcement executives know too little about private security. For example, when they speak about first responders, they refer to themselves, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Why not mention private security? In many emergencies, security officers are in fact the first on the scene. In New York on 9/11, some 70 police officers died, yet so did some 35 private security staff. In many cases, security professionals are at the scene first and can show police and fire responders where to go. There is a lack of awareness of what private security is and what it does. Partly this is due to an ab- sence of cohesion in security. For example, security is not always organized as a func- tional group within an organization, and security organizations tend not to train in mutual aid and usually lack communications interoperability. Sometimes conflicts between the law enforcement chief executives of neighboring juris- dictions prevent multijurisdictional public–private partnerships from forming. What would help eliminate the obstacles to cooperation? Both parties have a responsibility for improved partnership. Law enforcement confer- ences host sessions on many of the same topics covered at security conferences: inves- tigation of cyber crime, privacy rights, civil liberties, etc. Presenters from law enforce- ment should speak at security conferences, and presenters from security should speak at law enforcement conferences. Aside from the cross-training benefits, the interaction itself would itself be another form of cooperation. Law enforcement executives should learn what the private sector has to offer. For ex- ample, one summit participant reported that Xxxxxxx Xxxxx xxxx numerous computer staffers to the New York City Police Department to help with COMPSTAT. Security professionals should take the initiative to set up face-to-face meetings with law enforcement executives before a crisis occurs. Such meetings can help build personal relationships and trust. Police sometimes look askance at private security, yet in their off-duty employment they may be part of that occupation. Each side should educate the other about its capabilities, before a crisis erupts, so each will know when to call on the other and what help to expect (and to offer). Integrated training may break down some barriers. The national professional associations may be able to present some models of coopera- tion. On the other hand, it may be best to let experiments be done throughout the coun- try and see what works. In a hypothetical case, twice a week a huge tanker comes through the port of a major American city. As it stops to load up on liquid natural gas, the government provides armed police, frogmen, helicopters, and other high-end protection against terrorism. However, when the ship is not there, the plant itself is protected by unarmed guards be- cause the company is afraid of liability from an accidental shooting. What is needed is a way to balance the competing interests—between the risk of one person being shot ac- cidentally and the risk of a terrorist blowing up that plant and destroying several neighborhoods. What is going well? There may be more cooperation than people realize. The United States is home to more than 1,200 business improvement districts (BIDs), which are a form of public–private cooperation. Law enforcement has shaped private security, in that many corporate se- curity directors formerly worked in law enforcement. Some jurisdictions have public safety coordinating councils, in which businesses and law enforcement (state police, sheriff, local police, fire, EMS) discuss solutions to crime problems. It appears we do not know enough about the private security industry. What should be the research agenda going forward? We lack basic information on spending, employment, capabilities, and other aspects of private security. We should catalog successes—certainly in the United States, and possibly even in other countries. That process will lead to the discovery of best practices in public–private partnerships.

Issues Panel. The issues panel was facilitated by Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Co-Chair, Private Sector Liaison Committee, IACP, and included the following participants: • Xxx Xxxxxx, Chairman, Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. • Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Chief, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships • Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Immediate Past President, IACP • Xxxx Xxxxxx, Director, Global Security, Xxxxx and XxXxxxxx Companies, Inc. • Xxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxx and Professor, College of Criminal Justice, Northeastern Uni- versity • Xxx Xxxxxxxx, Intelligence Operations Specialist, Office of Law Enforcement Coordination, FBI • Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, Superintendent, Indiana State Police Department • Xxxx Xxxxxx, Manager, Global Security Issues and Strategy, Global Security Department, Exxon Mobil The summary below, constructed around questions posed by the facilitator, combines observations made by both panel members and audience members. What is the current status of the relationship between public law enforcement and private security? It may be more negative than positive. There is much role confusion between the public and private sectors—for example, confusion about what will be done in an emergency. If a company’s 's plant suffers an explosion, it may immediately be declared a crime scene by police, and then the company’s 's security staff cannot respond as needed. Likewise, in the post-9/11 era, law enforcement officers show up to conduct risk assessments but often are not as knowledgeable about them as private security is. Relations are mixed. A city may simultaneously have some outstanding partnerships but also some counterproductive relationships. 9/11 helped in relationship building. The true measure of success, however, is whether a partnership accomplishes something and is lasting. Community policing calls on law enforcement to develop relationships with various sec- tors of the community. Police departments meet regularly with local clergy, business groups, neighborhood associations, and other groups. They do not seem to meet regu- larly with groups of corporate security directors and managers of security businesses. Given law enforcement’s 's stretched resources and additional burdens, there is no better time to develop new relationships with private security and find ways to work together. For the most part, the public sector tends to have the threat information, and the private sector tends to have control over the vulnerable sites. Law enforcement’s 's capacity to provide homeland security may be more limited than is generally acknowledged. What obstacles keep law enforcement from working with private security? Information sharing is difficult. Corporations do not feel they receive timely information from police, and they also fear that information they give to the police may end up in the newspaper. Police fear that the corporate sector may not treat law enforcement informa- tion discreetly. Other issues include respect (that is, law enforcement’s 's lack of respect for security), trust, training differentials, and competition. A further obstacle is that the two sides may not realize the extent of their common goals. Law enforcement executives know too little about private security. For example, when they speak about first responders, they refer to themselves, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. Why not mention private security? In many emergencies, security officers are in fact the first on the scene. In New York on 9/11, some 70 police officers died, yet so did some 35 private security staff. In many cases, security professionals are at the scene first and can show police and fire responders where to go. There is a lack of awareness of what private security is and what it does. Partly this is due to an ab- sence of cohesion in security. For example, security is not always organized as a func- tional group within an organization, and security organizations tend not to train in mutual aid and usually lack communications interoperability. Sometimes conflicts between the law enforcement chief executives of neighboring juris- dictions prevent multijurisdictional public–-private partnerships from forming. What would help eliminate the obstacles to cooperation? Both parties have a responsibility for improved partnership. Law enforcement confer- ences host sessions on many of the same topics covered at security conferences: inves- tigation of cyber crime, privacy rights, civil liberties, etc. Presenters from law enforce- ment should speak at security conferences, and presenters from security should speak at law enforcement conferences. Aside from the cross-training benefits, the interaction itself would itself be another form of cooperation. Law enforcement executives should learn what the private sector has to offer. For ex- ample, one summit participant reported that Xxxxxxx Xxxxx xxxx numerous computer staffers to the New York City Police Department to help with COMPSTAT. Security professionals should take the initiative to set up face-to-face meetings with law enforcement executives before a crisis occurs. Such meetings can help build personal relationships and trust. Police sometimes look askance at private security, yet in their off-duty employment they may be part of that occupation. Each side should educate the other about its capabilities, before a crisis erupts, so each will know when to call on the other and what help to expect (and to offer). Integrated training may break down some barriers. The national professional associations may be able to present some models of coopera- tion. On the other hand, it may be best to let experiments be done throughout the coun- try and see what works. In a hypothetical case, twice a week a huge tanker comes through the port of a major American city. As it stops to load up on liquid natural gas, the government provides armed police, frogmen, helicopters, and other high-end protection against terrorism. However, when the ship is not there, the plant itself is protected by unarmed guards be- cause the company is afraid of liability from an accidental shooting. What is needed is a way to balance the competing interests—between the risk of one person being shot ac- cidentally and the risk of a terrorist blowing up that plant and destroying several neighborhoods. What is going well? There may be more cooperation than people realize. The United States is home to more than 1,200 business improvement districts (BIDs), which are a form of public–-private cooperation. Law enforcement has shaped private security, in that many corporate se- curity directors formerly worked in law enforcement. Some jurisdictions have public safety coordinating councils, in which businesses and law enforcement (state police, sheriff, local police, fire, EMS) discuss solutions to crime problems. It appears we do not know enough about the private security industry. What should be the research agenda going forward? We lack basic information on spending, employment, capabilities, and other aspects of private security. We should catalog successes—certainly in the United States, and possibly even in other countries. That process will lead to the discovery of best practices in public–-private partnerships.