CT may change its security service

Published 12:05 pm Thursday, February 21, 2008

Community Transit officials want to eliminate the agency’s in-house security force and instead contract with the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office for police services.

Replacing the five-member force with deputies is estimated to nearly double the cost of security to $1 million in the first year alone.

The suggestion has angered not only security officers but some members of the agency’s governing board.

“I’m not certain this is good management. I oppose the entire idea,” said Jeff Sax, a board member and Snohomish County councilman.

“I have no confidence in the director of this organization to negotiate (the contract),” he added.

Last week, the board of directors was asked to give executive director Joyce Olson the authority to negotiate and sign the contract. But few details were given to the board about the proposed six-year pact. Olson was on vacation and not at the meeting.

CT officials have said the switch would mean greater security for the agency and more protection from lawsuits. Details on the exact costs and how the service would be provided are still evolving, and negotiations with the sheriff’s office are ongoing.

Transit security workers patrol CT’s facilities, respond to distress calls from bus drivers and help develop long-range crime-prevention and emergency management plans. But not everyone on the board is convinced that doing away with the in-house unit that has provided security for more than 10 years is the right approach.

“This is a commitment and a lot of money,” said Pat Cordova, a CT board member and Mountlake Terrace mayor. “I don’t feel I’m ready to say yes right now.”

Jim Turpie, chief administrative officer and acting CEO, said quick action was taken so training of the new deputies could take place in January.

“It was an attempt to meet that timeline,” Turpie said, adding the start date would be pushed back. CT officials will present a contract to the board later for review and approval.

CT’s security officers, however, say the switch is retribution for their role in raising questions about the agency’s operations. Security officers have filed two whistleblower complaints since the beginning of the year.

“Since then, it’s been swift and relentless,” said Jim Sauter, a security officer who has worked for the transit agency for 24 years.

Sauter filed the first whistleblower complaint. It came after security officers were told they couldn’t intervene in any assaults that involved passengers or bus drivers, and they couldn’t touch or physically remove drunk or disruptive passengers.

“It’s called the “observe and report” approach. Officers have been told to back away and call police if there is any trouble on buses or at CT facilities.

There have been several incidents, officers say, where they have had to stand by and do nothing because of the new policy. One incident involved a young teen who was being beaten by an adult at CT’s Smokey Point Transit Center. Another involved a Lynnwood police officer who was having trouble handling a combative person at the Lynnwood Park and Ride.

“It’s insane,” Sauter said. His whistleblower complaint claimed the new policy put passengers and transit employees in harm’s way.

“It goes against everything we’re about,” said Dennis Warnock, a security officer who has worked in various jobs at CT for almost 20 years.

Turpie, however, said the change in the agency’s security force was not in retaliation for the whistleblower complaints. An administrative judge already has ruled that one retaliation claim was unfounded, he said.

Officers have also been told to use their own judgment when responding to incidents, Turpie said.

“We tried to be very clear about that — that observe and report didn’t mean you ignored things,” he said.

But Robert Olson, a former security officer, disagrees.

He was demoted from his job and made a bus driver after he helped restrain a teenager at the Lynnwood Park and Ride during a confrontation in May after a large group of loitering teens were told to move on.

A girl spat on Olson and lunged at him, Olson said, adding that he was disciplined for overreacting during the incident. The teenager was charged by Lynnwood police and later pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault against Olson.

Officers also are irritated that they’re losing their jobs at a time when some of CT’s top managers — Turpie, operations chief John Sindzinski and maintenance director Kevin Hiemenz — are in line to get raises of between $4,900 and $12,000 next year because of the agency’s recent reorganization.

Security officers also have raised questions about the agency’s new radio system, which was installed using less broadcast power than the old one. It also has been less reliable than the old system, and there have been numerous “dead spots” with the new system.

Problems with the radio system have meant that security officers haven’t been able to hear complete calls.

“There have been several distress calls I could hear,” Sauter said, but just in bits and pieces.

Turpie acknowledged there have been problems with the new system, but creating a system that would match ones used by police and fire agencies would be cost-prohibitive.

Currently, security officers are union members. Their labor agreement runs through 2003. CT spent about $427,000 for salaries and benefits on its in-house security officers last year and has allocated about $551,000 to pay for seven officers next year.

CT officials have said the agency’s security officers would be reassigned to other jobs if a contract with the sheriff’s office is approved. CT managers say liability is the main reason why a switch is needed in security.

But the change isn’t the only option.

The agency’s insurance provider, the Washington State Transit Insurance Pool, told CT earlier this year that the agency can probably get $5 million in coverage for its security operations for a $100,000 premium.

Turpie said he was unaware of any lawsuits filed because of security in the past two years, but there have been some suits related to the conduct of coach operators.

Security forces for transit agencies are a mixed bag across the country. Many outside of Washington contract for services, as do most transit agencies here.

CT’s insurance provider has told the agency, however, that having in-house security does not automatically mean a high number of lawsuits. The Phoenix Transit System, for example, has an in-house security force of more than 30 employees and has never been sued for a security issue in its 13 years of existence.

Community Transit’s Risk Management Department hired a safety consultant this year to review the hazards faced by security officers. The consultant’s report says most of the 300 confrontations reported last year arose from disputes between bus drivers and passengers.

Security officers have been put in harm’s way, and the agency’s “observe and report” policy may not mean passengers will be protected from harm, according to Evergreen Safety Council’s consultant report.

“Security officers face disgruntled, potentially dangerous and potentially armed individuals on a regular and recurring basis,” the consultant report states. “They are placed at personal risk with inadequate equipment, i.e. baton or pepper spray, to protect themselves if attacked.”

The report recommends increasing the number of security officers or supplementing the in-house force with security guards from a private company.

Brian Kelly writes for the Herald in Everett.