Michael Cass reported a couple of hours ago that a security guard who was supposed to be on duty at 9:45 p.m. on December 24 when the Metro Election Commission was broken into was fired. The guard did not work for Metro, but for a Mt. Juliet subcontractor. My next question is, was this entirely the guard's fault? Or is he also taking the fall for flaws in the services that Metro pays for? What were his supervisors doing? We need to look at the entire chain of security.
We also need to ask tough questions about the practice of subcontracting to private firms. Could this problem--which has now become a very expensive one for Metro--have been averted if the Metro had its own security team (not to mention an alarm system) guarding Metro buildings? I think we would at least have a lot more public accountability if the guard were employed directly by Metro government. There would also be no protective cushion between private and public that gives supervisors easy opportunities to cover their own butts.
UPDATE: The Director of General Services told the Public Safety Committee tonight that the security guard was fired because he was observed and admitted to not making his hourly rounds.
UPDATE: Director also said that security might not have heard the window break at 9:45 because he was listening to Christmas music. She added that General Services is reevaluating its contract with and obligations of the security subcontractor.