Friday, September 12, 2008

VILLAGE SECURITY
At the September 4th Board meeting, Director Dodson’s security presentation did not immediately determined how much higher it would cost for our new licensed security company. We spent over $230K for gate keeping last year. This year $206K has been budgeted and that appears to be on track. During the security presentation, Directors Steffensen and Burke threw out figures they believed should be added to these bids in order to show its true cost. These figures were ranging from $16K to $27K, depending upon who was talking.

It has been established to this date we will pay $18K more than this year’s budgeted cost in order to have Securitas as our new licensed security.

It’s interesting why we even accepted an unlicensed security group in the first place? Here’s some history towards how all this came about..
Jan. 2005 Our GM proposed to our Board of having Aramark replace Securitas. The board approved this idea.
May 2005 Four months later with no security license, our GM said his company changed their minds because Texas has outrageous liability costs. Securitas receives a new one year contract.
August 2006 Aramark’s Senior VP gave our GM the go ahead to pursue contracting LIV for security. Aramark’s bid was approximately $3K less than Securitas. Motion was made to award Aramark the security contract and Director Burke seconds it. Motion was approved. It was decided that Aramark will run security while getting a security license.
June 2007 Ten months later and no security license; our GM stated that his company changed their minds and will not get a security license due to, in his words, a $20,000 Texas out of state fee. The Board ordered bids be obtained from license security companies for review.
August 2007 Besides his own, our GM acquired only two licensed security company bids to choose from. Both companies were apparently based substantially further than the maximum mile radius set by the board. Aramark was awarded the contract. The Board reasons were cost savings, more services, and direct control. Current Board members that served then were Directors Burke, Mulch, Steffensen, and Young. Director Young was the only Director to vote no.
To note; This $20K Texas out of state fee was later found to actually be a new franchise tax past in 2006 to start in 2008 that applied to all businesses located in and out of Texas, and had no apparent bearing at acquiring a security license?

Current reasons for the replacing our unlicensed gate keepers.
1. They are powerless to enforce most of our Village protocol legally.
2. Wanting to reduce our Village liability. Our Village is continually displaying the illusion of having a licensed security. It begins with being a gated community and continues with posted guards, vehicle screening, patrols, security cameras, uniforms, being called for problems, being called for emergencies, realtors advertising 24 hr security, accidently calling them security at board meetings, and more. This illusion increases our liability exponentially. Simple example would be a renter lets her guard down thinking we have train security and gets injured or abused by a perpetrator. Could our Association show we were diligent in securing our property or show we reduced the protection with untrained and unlicensed personnel in order to save a buck.
3. Untrained personnel
4. Untrained management training their untrained personnel.
5. Management failing to design adequate procedures for updating personnel on changing LIV needs.
6. Personnel not being trained properly. Unable to read the LIV Owners directory correctly and directing vehicles to wrong addresses. Unable to provide simple information when called.
7. The apparent need of trained and licensed personnel to communicate with the proper etiquette and be able to properly document current events.

Original reason to have our non licensed security
1. Cost
2. More services
3. Direct control

Is it worth it?
Ask yourself if it is worth $18 a year to better protect your physical well being, property, and enforce the Village regulations using licensed personnel that are trained and tested in this area.

How much is it worth to improve our Village’s posture towards future litigations? Having a License Security might it not even be possible to recoup this increase and more in the long run through lower insurance premiums and attorney fees ?

Are we really getting our $206K + money’s worth with this unlicensed Aramark team?

Shouldn’t we be looking after Long Island Village interests instead of the GM’s or Aramark’s?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't understand your whole "Is it worth it" section in your Village Security blog post. You already reported earlier that the board had awarded the contract to Securitas and gave Aramark 60 days notice, so why rehash and raise those questions when it's already a done deal?

Anonymous said...

Do believe that Joey was only restating the facts and perhaps making a point for those who are still "cackling" over the decision. I for one will be glad to licensed security again.

Anonymous said...

RE:During the security presentation, Directors Steffensen and Burke threw out figures they believed should be added to these bids in order to show its true cost. These figures were ranging from $16K to $27K, depending upon who was talking.
"Please explain threw out figures"

What needed to be added to show true cost? Thats $11,000.00diffence that will show up somewhere in the future. And there will be " I TOLD YOU SO!" from bruke and steffenson. What Is the bottom line for security?

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter...it's already done. Why must we still make an argument out of it?

The new board members that banded together for "change" got some of what they wanted.

When it's time to renew our contract with Aramark, the bid will be significantly higher to make up for putting up with all the nonsense and harassment. SO--they will get their way AGAIN because we won't be able to afford Aramark anymore.

Time to sell out folks! Get out now before EVERYONE puts their property up for sale!

Anonymous said...

Aramark charges plenty for doing little now. I for one hope they price themselves out so we may have a chance to find out what a real service company can do and not have the reputation of over billing. By the way we should be charged less by them for the GM being the caused of this nonsense and harassment you mentioned.

Anonymous said...

Re: It doesn't matter...
If you feel it's time to sell out, move on.

Anonymous said...

Re: It doesn't matter......

Sounds like the SGG is still alive and well. Selling out is not the answer. Supporting our 5 sensible BOD members is the answer. It is time for a new manager and time to move on.

"Still hungry" isn't the only one who have heard less than pleasant things about our village. The comments I have heard all centered around the GM and the SGG. We really don't need that.

Anonymous said...

Can you please clarify - your timeline here starts Jan 2005 with GM proposing Aramak replace Securitas, but in your other Security article farther down the page, you reference a March 26, 2003 Board meeting minutes:

"...but would like to turn over to made a motion that ARAMARK be awarded the contract for gate attendants and patrol. Board would then hold Armando responsible through Fletcher.
Call for a vote. All in favor except for Halbach who abstained. Motion approved."

Did the Board actually approve an Aramark contract for security in this 2003 meeting?

Anonymous said...

Yeh, time to move on, but I've seen several posts condemning the SGG for criticising 3 board members, yet these posters are doing the exact same thing by coninually referring to "our 5 sensible BOD members", implying that the others are not sensible. Seems like it's time for EVERYONE to move on!

Joey said...

RE: Can you please clarify. Did the Board actually approve an Aramark contract for security in this 2003 meeting?

No they did not. The Board shift to management everything that is management like facilities, security, and building codes and then hold them accountable for. There was an inadvertent pasting error of14 words that appear later in this article. I corrected this error and wish to thank you for bringing it to my attention.