|
The
good, the bad and the ugly
by Norma Rodriguez
Texas Private Security Bureau Investigator
This article will provide a few examples of the good, the bad and the ugly of the security profession regulated by the Texas Department of Public Safety-Private Security Bureau.
During the 35 years that the security profession has been regulated there have been several areas within this profession, which have shown an increasing need of supervision, training, or correction. Some of these situations are of such severity that they can only be classified as negligent, or even criminal, in nature (i.e., ugly). Examples of this type of behavior include falsifying training documents, hiring individuals not eligible to be licensed in this state (due to criminal histories or prior license suspensions or revocations by this bureau), or even the issuance of fictitious certificates by the licensed companies.
Contacts with security officers displaying a disregard for rules have revealed the following interesting results� Texas Administrative Code 37 Rules 35.50 and 35.59 clearly state that the registrant and commissioned officer must present their card upon request. When requesting compliance with this code we have frequently been met with the following responses: �No,� �I don�t have to show you jack,� �why,� �wait while I call my boss,� and then you have the one or two that just take off running. There has also been one incident where in parting the investigator engaged in a handshake with the security officer and was met with the comment �I�ll break your hand.� Hardly the response one would expect from partners in the public safety field.
The area that I would feel takes on the title of �bad� is the area where people exercise perhaps clouded judgment. This area encompasses perhaps the greatest number of corrective actions required by our bureau. Unfortunately these cases frequently cause the security company employees to become the recipients of enforcement action due to the lack of training and concern shown by their employers. Many times the security officers have to rely on the limited information provided by the company. Some examples follow�
A security officer is often found completely unaware of what is happening when he encounters his first security officer inspection while on post. He is often shocked when faced with the possibility of receiving a ticket for failing to meet the uniform requirements or presenting a pocket card without a color photograph or signature upon the card. Many times the guard expresses that he did not know that these rules exist, and certainly did not realize that he would be responsible for being out of compliance.
Many guards are reliant upon the companies to provide the equipment utilized in their day-to-day duties. We have personally viewed instances where this equipment was not only a danger to the guard but to the general public as well. As an example, instances have occurred where we found security officers carrying weapons that were missing firing pins or where weapons were being held together with tape. We have also encountered security officers as recently as last month who have told us that when they carry their firearm on a commissioned post, they do not have the firearm loaded as it is against their belief to do so. The client with whom they are contracted certainly has the right to file a complaint. The company is charging for a commissioned officer, but in reality is only providing a non-commissioned officer to work this post.
Another example of the breech of trust exhibited by security companies toward their employees is evident in cases where we have security officers who come to us asking for assistance because their payroll checks were paid on an account with insufficient funds. The security officer in good faith, paid their bills, and then incurred multiple fees because their own checks have now been returned.
I would now like to spend time addressing the �good� that we have encountered within the profession. Most companies seek to exceed the standards of the security profession by designating a person who performs random security officer inspections and regularly audits their own company files. One company has in place an oral board to test the security officers over the Title 10 Occupations Code, Chapter 1702 and Texas Administrative Code 37 TAC 35. This test also includes portions of the Penal Code.
In conclusion, it is easy to see that although the industry has many challenges to face, progress is being made. Security companies are currently working with the Bureau to enhance the training objectives for security officers in an effort to improve the image of the security profession. In this day where the threat of terrorism is a fact of life in the United States, private security is stepping up to fill a vital role in the defense of this nation. One could not pick a better time to work toward increasing the professionalism and effectiveness of the security officer.
About the author: Norma Rodriquez began working for the Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies as an investigator in 1998. The 78th Legislature moved the TPIPSA under control of the Texas Department of Public Safety in February 2004. Rodriquez considers it a privilege to work as an investigator for the Texas Department of Public
Safety - Private Security Bureau.
To be continued next issue... �The Good.�
|
