Teaching the Teacher

I have been conducting CAM and CAPS classes for NAA for almost two decades (Lord that sounds old when I say that), and have been fortunate enough to be on the NAA Education Committee and serve as a subject matter expert on re-writing several of the modules with those designation programs.  Today, was another day of teaching and learning which is the exciting part of what I do in addition to making new friends.  It never amazes me that while I am there to lead students into an educational experience, I always have "take-away's," which I benefit from.

While facilitating the Risk Management course and leading the discussion, several great points were raised and we had some great questions.  One of them dealt with private security at an apartment community and addressing crime problems they were attempting to overcome.  This community which was a condo conversion to rentals, had been experiencing criminal activity as well as resident issues.  Drastic steps were being taken to "re-position" the community, including hiring not just security (or patrols), but "armed" patrols.  The owner of the site had handled the contract side of it, and the manager while being active in the action, brought up her part in working with them.  Now if "armed security/patrols" scares anyone, there are many pitfalls and concerns that follow the path to the intended result.  Our industry has been careful not to use or "imply" we provide security or can guarantee a safe and secure environment.  The reason is we cannot guarantee security or safety, and no matter what we do things can happen beyond our control.  Crime can happen anywhere including home, work, or simply picking up a gallon of milk at the grocery store.  The question came up, "Does the badge worn by the patrol representatives which has security on it imply or provide a false sense of security?"

After contacting an attorney friend, the answer he gave was the usual attorney response "it could."  Did not say it did, however, cautioned how it could be interpreted in a lawsuit or litigation should one be brought.  The courts have gone both ways, however, mostly in favor of the resident or visitor at a property.  As we all know insurance carriers are often trying to avoid court action and will settle if there is anything related to the case they are not comfortable with.  He also asked what I brought up in the discussion, "Does your insurance carrier know this could be interpreted as implied based on their uniforms and armed status?"  In this case he again was not direct, however, stated if he was representing an injured or victim in this case he would use it if he could.

Our jobs as professional property managers and as fiduciaries for owners is to bring these concerns to the forefront.  The owner may wish to not investigate the challenge, however, you have done your job by bringing it up and documenting the communication.  In this litigious and changing society, we are constantly hitting a mobile target and having to look at new risks and challenges.  A good debate and discussion ensued related to this topic, and if nothing else opened everyone's eyes to what we face and what we need to be aware of in the decisions made by both us and by owners of our properties.  This became a learning point for everyone, including this old codger who then had to investigate and obtain information making me understand more about what we do.

Good lesson for everyone.