UPDATE:  The following post is from last month. Since this posted on the 14th of January, the Brain-Trust in  the Douglas/Dubie administration has revisited their brilliant approach to privatizing state security.  The Administration’s Brain-Trust, which originally tried to outsource assault, battery & unlawful restraint (for starters), and then have Vermont’s taxpayers foot the bill, has at least attempted to solve this latest act of unthinking incompetence.

The solution? (you’ll love this) the Brain-Trust decided to redefine the word “confrontation” in the Request For Proposal for Security contract (“RFP”) and just hope the whole thing will go away.  

(See the original post below the fold for the background detail).

This is what happened after this post originally ran. During the question period for companies seeking to bid on the security contract, a savvy potential contractor sent an inquiry to the Department of Buildings and General Services. The question to B&GS was what does “the term confront” mean relative to “confronting persons” seeking to access a building without authorization or what does confront mean in the context of dealing with “physical confrontations.” (See Question # 4 of question list to B&GS).  



It’s All So Simple –

So what does “confront” or “confrontation” mean? Well we are still not sure, but guess what it does NOT mean? According to the Brain-Trust in the Douglas/Dubie administration the answer is: “confront simply (simply?) refers to investigating . . . “Physical engagement is prohibited.” In other words, imagine crime-stopping (“simply imagine?”)as a game of touch football. Now, leave (“simply leave?”) out the touching part. — Don’t you just love the use of “simply” when someone says  something so confusing that it makes no sense whatsoever?

How does this all work now? Basically, it looks like the administration is giving a wink & a nod to all bidders by saying “Tell us your training and procedures for applying necessary force in relation to crimes on State property and explain your security personnel’s methods and training for making a citizen’s arrest.”  However, when you engage in “necessary force” or make a “citizen’s arrest” as part of your crime-fighting duties just remember: Physical Engagement Is Prohibited.  OK, everyone clear on that!

What ever happened to “sorry we screwed up and this is what we meant to say?” Is that so hard? Is it really all that difficult to just say “forget about that ‘necessary force’ and “citizen’s arrest” bullshit because we just screwed up”?  

Tell me again, how many months until we can return a level of competence to the Governor’s office? After almost 8 years of Douglas/Dubie, it is truly time to put a few grown-ups back in charge.

NOTE: The following is the original January 14 post.  Some of the links may no longer be operable since the Administration pulled or stopped linking some of the reference.

In a notice posted by the administration’s Department of Building and General Services, the Douglas/Dubie administration announced its intention to skirt reason, abandon common-sense, accountability, jettison its oath to uphold the law and did we mention tossing “common sense?” They continue to  operate in an alternative universe.

This latest administration stunt involves publishing a Request-for-Proposal (RFP) seeking bids from private security firms. The RFP claims that it will be awarded based, in large measure, on the private company’s:

ability to train its guards to make “citizen arrests” (see RFP section 3.6.4.1 @ page 7)

corporate protocols for “citizen arrests”

corporate procedures training its security guards to handle “the force necessary” to handle suspected crimes on public property.

There’s more – there always is .  .  .

Before considering what the Do-Less & DooBE-inCompetent Administration is asking private guards to do (while wearing official “looking” uniforms and while employed by the State and on State property), consider the issue of “citizen arrest.”

First, in Vermont, “citizen arrest” has a more precise term. Several precise terms in fact.

Under Vermont law, a typical term for citizen arrest is “Assault.”

Another one of those legal-eagle words that judges, juries, cops and prosecutors use when describing a citizen arrest” is “Unlawful Restraint.” (Substantially restraining the movement of another person without the person’s consent).

Now, for those of you joining us late, or for those of you who are but mere distracted and highly paid members of a GOP administration sworn to uphold Vermont law, assault and unlawful restraint are crimes that can carry big fines and nasty prison terms.

Aside from the criminal penalties, in a tort case for civil damages, a “citizen arrest” is what a judge more commonly refers to as “assault and battery” and “false imprisonment.”

If the administration wants police officers on State property arresting people, then hire sworn and trained law enforcement officers certified to do the job.  However, if arresting citizens is not critical to the job of locking doors and inspecting parking lots at state buildings or Interstate-91 rest areas, then perhaps the State should just issue pagers and cell phones to the private guards and tell them what constitutes a 911 call.

The “Statewide Security Services” RFP link, as of today’s date, is HERE.

Page 7 of the RFP, with the highlighted language, is HERE.

 Loading ...