« Will Cal get with the program? cell phones for emergencies | Home | Dutch adopt new mobile communications solution »
Federal Protective Services scandal: NECN investigates
By WDavidStephenson | May 25, 2007
I was on New England Cable News (NECN) again last night, this time weighing in on a real scandal uncovered 
by NECN reporter Josh McElveen after he was tipped off by a Federal Protective Service (FPS) whistleblower upset by the cutbacks on manpower for the agency that protects non-military federal facilities.
Make that supposed to protect federal facilities. The reality is far different, and about to get even worse.
McElveen documents an astounding story. Here are a few of the low-lights:
- at present, only 65 agents are responsible for protecting 450 federal facilities in New England, including high-profile federal offices. As recently as 2003 the major facilities were guarded 24/7 Now, it’s basically a 9 to 5 job.
- If projected cuts this summer go through, the number of FPS personnel in New England could be cut nearly in half. Do the math: each would be be responsible for an average of 15 buildings. Are they considering cloning or SecondLife avatars to fill the gap?
- in one incident cited by McElveen, an internal alarm in the Tip O’Neill Building in Boston (BTW: do ya think Mr. “All Politics Is Local” would have allowed these cuts if he was still running the show? I think not) sounded on the weekend. Since there was no one guarding the building, the alarm was routed to the regional headquarters in Philly, and thence to the only dude in New England that weekend. By the time he drove down from his home in NH, almost 1 1/2 hrs. had passed!
- with the cuts, there would be no weekend or evening coverage anywhere in the country for any facility. The money saved by this cut will instead be used to print engraved invitations to terrorists: “You are cordially invited to attack any federal building on the weekend or at night. No RSVP required….”
- to compound the danger, the administrative “reforms” would also eliminate “proactive patrols.” As a member of the Grammar and Usage Police, I strongly support any effort to get rid of the non-word proactive, but I sure don’t support getting rid of patrols designed to thwart incidents before they happen.
- Teddy Kennedy, thank goodness, is on the case. He told NECN he’ll try to get the cuts restored, but I suspect that’s unlikely: don’t Kennedy and others understand that the best way to protect us from terrorists at home is to pour billions down a rat hole in Iraq (BTW, my son tells me that those billions don’t go to sewage treatment: the stench in Baghdad is terrible, and it doesn’t just stem from political corruption…) instead of guard crucial facilities here at home??
McElween said that the unstated assumption is that local authorities will have to pick up the gap, but I pointed out that seamless, interoperable emergency communication between the feds and localities still has a long way to go ( the first time Boston police heard about the cutbacks was from McElween!).
While admitting my love of all things technological, I also told McElween that there was simply no substitute for the judgment and experience of an on-the-ground agent in these situations.
Watch the piece, and if you’re as horrified as I was (I assume similar cuts will be made nationwide), make sure to contact your Congressional delegation and demand restoration of the cuts. Nice job, Josh!
Technorati tags: homeland security DHS Department of Homeland Security War on Terror Iraq Warterrorismantiterrorism government New England Massachusetts Boston Immigration and Customs Enforcement Federal Protective Services
Topics: policy and politics, Uncategorized | |
