http://museum-security.org
securma@museum-security.org


          securma
the museum security network
join the mailinglist   scroll down     STEVE KELLER'S REPORTS TO THE MUSEUM SECURITY MAILINGLIST





Steve Keller: "survival" of the fires of 1998

Over the past two weeks I have communicated with many of my family, clients and friends regarding the fires here in Florida. Not everyone got every communication due to the difficulty of sending email during the evacuations. Excuse any redundancy as I bring everyone up to date on our status. Family and friends will find this interesting and clients and professional friends will find the disaster preparedness aspects of this useful.
For six weeks, Florida, in the midst of our worst ever drought, has experienced wildfires across the state. At last count, over 2000 fires burned nearly 500,000 acres, an area 66% the size of the state of Rhode Island. Counties primarily effected are Volusia (my county) Flagler, Brevard and Orange. Volusia County lost 1 out of every five acres to fire.
My home and office are located in a sub-division called Hunter's Ridge in Ormond Beach just north of Daytona. My community actually spans the Volusia/Flagler County line. On Monday June 29 I returned from a client visit early due to a voluntary evacuation of my sub-division. On Tuesday evening we met with the fire chief and learned that a 32,000 acre fire in Flagler county had joined a larger fire in Volusia. It now ran from deep into Flagler, all the way through Volusia, and deep into Brevard County, a distance of about 40 miles. It was a wall of fire up to miles deep and was moving eastward. One of the fires nearest us was a plume, a fire storm that reached 10,000 feet in the air with effects felt 40,000 feet in the air and so violent it was making its own weather. A smaller fire was 2,500 feet from our community.
On Wednesday morning I implemented stage two of my company disaster plan and relocated most records, computers, back-up data, office equipment, blueprints, and my personal art, antiques, and records to our off-site warehouse deep in the city of Ormond Beach and miles from the forests. Wednesday afternoon we packed both vehicles with personal items and waited for a mandatory evacuation order while preparing our properties for the worst. About 6 pm Wednesday police began a mandatory evacuation.
Computer models showed that the fire was raging toward Ormond Beach. Not only was our sub-division evacuated but all of Ormond Beach west of Nova Road where our warehouse is located were evacuated. The order almost came too late. As we left our home and drove east on route 40 for 6 miles then south on I-95 five miles then west on I-4 from Daytona to Orlando, we were surrounded by flames. Flames literally lapped the road along SR 40 and was in the process of jumping I-95 as we passed LPGA Boulevard. The fire storm was so hot it created its own rain for a short way along I-95. Before we were even out of town tens of thousands of people were in serious danger of being trapped. The first race of the Pepsi 400 at Daytona speedway was scheduled for Thursday and 200,000 visitors were arriving as we evacuated. That night, 30,000 residents were evacuated.
Over the next several days, 120,000 people were evacuated including the entire population of Flagler County, Florida. One hundred and forty miles of I-95 were closed from Jacksonville to Titusville as well as every road in Flagler County, the B-Line Expressway, Route 1 for over 150 miles, and other roads and most airports. I stayed at my mother's home near Orlando and watched 24 hour coverage of the fires and firestorms on TV.
On July 2, firefighters from 42 states and Canada, the U.S. Forest Service, military, and many private agencies like the Daytona Speedway, Walt Disney World, etc. fought the raging wall of fire that advanced on the coast. Two thirds of all fire fighting aircraft in the U.S. were in Florida. All available bulldozers in the southeast U.S. were brought in.
On July 3 the fire advanced on our community but was held off. Computer models continued to show my street as ground zero. We live near a "T" intersection with the cross street running into a vacant wooded lot next to my house. Heavy woods run behind my house and extend for 50 miles without any development. Woods run through my community. The fire department decided that if they lost our community they might lose 30,000 homes in Ormond Beach and the fires might press all the way to the intercoastal waterway and even to the beach itself. All available reinforcements were brought in and fire breaks and roads were bulldozed in the woods around us as the fire advanced on three sides. The walls of fire didn't even have to jump the breaks since the thermal energy was so great that the woods across the fire breaks exploded.
On July 4 the war began in my sub-division as the firestorm hit at the very property predicted by computer models. During the day and night a total of four fire storms hit various parts of my community. I watched on TV as a TV crew took video from my front yard as a large helicopter dropped 600 gallons of water and fire retardant on the roof of the house across the street. The woods behind their house were blazing with fire. My house is just one block from the property designated as ground zero but I have a hydrant in my front yard and the decision was made to defend the water supply at all costs. As fire blazed through the woods behind my house, coming right up to my grass but harming not one blade of it, the firefighters managed to defend the house and yard and direct the fire around our sub-division. Vinyl siding was not scorched or melted because as the fire passed, water was flooded on each threatened house until the threat was over. Residents of Hunter's Ridge were not permitted to return until Monday July 6 due to spot fires. I put out several behind my home Monday and Tuesday. All residents were asked to participate in a fire watch so we are not getting much sleep here.
My home has three separate heating/cooling systems, not because it is a large house but because I used an energy engineer to design a system for maximum cooling efficiency. These prevented smoke damage to the inside of the house. Our community has underground utilities to assure continued electricity in a hurricane and power remained operational for all but 35 minutes of the ordeal! The irrigation system operated automatically and kept the yard wet. Our 50 gallon propane tank for the fireplace was a major concern but since it is located near the corner of the building with the fire hydrant, it was protected by firefighters. While the woods all around me were thoroughly burned, the vacant lot next to me was untouched as it contained the hydrant and was defended. I think there is a lesson there.
On Tuesday July 7 our first rain storm since April 1 occurred putting out many of the small hot spots. But we still need about 7 inches of rain to put out all of the remaining fires. A new alligator appeared in the pond down the block, his regular habitat destroyed, so all of the hazards do not involve fires! The moves out of the house and office were orderly but disruptive. The move back in will take several days. We expect to be fully operational in the office by close of business Wednesday July 8 and will meet all deadlines occurring after that day. We suffered no loss other than the considerable costs of implementing a disaster plan and relocating, although we have some landscaping to do where fire trucks and military Hummers drove repeatedly through our yard. I want to thank all of you who emailed me through out the ordeal with your support and conveyed your prayers. I'm pleased to say that our disaster plan worked, although we learned a great deal that can't be learned in simulations. Whether you are an individual or represent an organization I urge you to conduct a risk assessment to identify the risks you may face, then develop a plan to deal with those risks. Don't assume that you can't defend against a hurricane, firestorm or tornado and don't assume that insurance will cover your losses. I'll be glad to share my thoughts with anyone wanting to call to discuss lessons learned but please give me a few weeks to get caught up.
So, how were your July 4th fireworks?
Steve Keller
Security Consultant
Steve Keller and Associates, Inc.
22 Foxfords Chase
Ormond Beach, Florida 32174
(904) 673-9973

Re: student guards (Steve Keller IntlArtCop@aol.com)

Brent wrote:
"Life experience is important, but somehow it comes accross in your reply that youth lacks common sense and the ability to make rational and appropriate decisions. "
Brent:
That's not exactly what I was saying. I guess the older you get, the more you feel that younger people may not be as experienced or qualified as they might really be. And the reverse is true: The younger you are, the less you are able or willing to see the short comings in youth. When I was a "kid" of 33, I was three years into my career at the Art Institute of Chicago and probably would have agreed with you that 18 year old student guards could handle the job. Experience has changed my mind. First, let me say that if our Earth is ever invaded and I need someone to fly the federation's secret armada of high tech space ships to save mankind, my 24 year old grad student daughter will be one of the people I would nominate for the job. She grew up on Nintendo and has about as good reflexes as anyone possibly can have. Given some of the quick thinking answers she gave me when I asked why she was coming is late, I judge her as being quick thinking and resourceful. And having seen her drive a car in Washington, D.C. traffic where she goes to school. I know she has guts to back up the brains and stamina. She'd be qualified to drive getaway cars for bank robbers. If I were getting my fanny kicked by some crazy person in the lobby of a museum, who would I prefer to have come to my rescue--an 18 year old college- aged guard or some 70 year old retiree? That's an easy one. I'd go for the young kid any day. But I have gained a certain amount of life's experience over the years that allows me to get the best of the younger people in other ways. And I can prove it. I do surveys in museums where I pass myself off, among other things, as a reporter, and ask questions about what it's like to be a security officer. I play to the ego of the officer, make him feel real good, then drain the poor guy of informatation about their security. I can con younger people easier than older ones and have done so time and again for years. Yes, I can usually con the older ones to a degree, but the college kids are easier intimidated and easier conned. Student guards don't necessarily make specific mistakes at any greater rate than other-aged guards do. But they do have less of a GENERAL sense of responsibility about work than "career" guards do (who have a family to feed or who need the job in order to keep the hospital benefits in force). My 70 year olds didn't call in sick to go to the beach on the first sunny day of the Spring. They didn't call in sick on Saturday morning after a big night out at the same rate as the kids did. And it is my sense that they were often more pre-occupied with other things like their studies or their social life. Since the type of work we do doesn't generally require muscle, physical prowess, and an ability to fly spaceships to the rescue of mankind, and it does require that the officer report to work day in and day out on time and without regard to the weather or the school schedule, I prefer not to use students. You sell yourself short if you think you can't get older people to buy into your program because you are "only" 33 years old. As I noted, I was 30 when I took over the Art Institute of Chicago and the average age of the security force when I began had to have been well over 55. I know you, and I know that you can charm a 70 year old just as well as you can charm a college kid. You just are more comfortable working with younger people.
The other problem with college students as guards is the difficulty managing them. YOU may have enough time in YOUR situation to devote the extra time to keeping students challenged, getting them to report on time and not to call in sick, etc. but I never had that luxury. I don't really think you do, either. You should be using your time as a manager to manage, not to supervise. There is a difference. Student guards need more supervision--in the long run. Finally, my concerns about student guards include the perception others have of them. Many older people have difficulty taking instruction or orders from anyone, let alone a college age kid. Most of the complaints we had involved visitors who simply didn't want to comply with rules they perceived to be arbitrary. It was a fact that some of the museum contractors and trades people had trouble taking orders from female guards, and older workers had trouble taking orders from younger ones. Our largest number of complaints involved the rule requiring visitors to check oversized parcels in the coat room. We took the time to poll visitors about why they objected to the rule so much and found that they didn't object to the rule at all. They just thought the guard--whom they perceived as being below them in status--was enforcing an arbitrary rule on them and they resented it. We pre-printed a formal letter on letterhead and placed it at the guard podium. When a visitor began to complain about the parcel check rule, the guard pulled out a copy of the letter and gave it to the visitor with an apology about having to enforce the rule. The letter was signed by the President of the museum and explained why the rule was necessary. Complaints dropped by about 1000 percent. This tells me that being a guard is difficult for anyone and that perceived status of the Guard by the guarded is important. When I looked further at this I realized that certain guards didn't ever get challenged about enforcing the rules. These guards were the "mature" males who gave an appearance that was acceptable to the tpical visitor. Others got challenged by visitors, presumably because they were perceived by the visitor as being below them in status. Or, maybe I'm wrong and maybe the older guys just had life's expereince that helped them handle people better. But I don't think so. In my opinion it was the older females who dealt best with people, so if it was anything other than perceived status that drove the interaction, successful interactions would not have been more frequently limited to the older males. The last straw was when the Gardner Museum had their theft and the newspaper's had the gall to call me and ask if I thought they were negligent because they used student guards! I happened to know a bit about their situation and know that they were not negligent and that their guards were as well trained and supervised as any other guards anywhere. But obviously there was a perception by the newspaper that the museum was not doing all it could by hiring students. I'll concede that you probably do well with students in your situation and should keep them. But I don't think that in general student guards are as good as career guards are in a museum, if only in perception. But I do not feel they are immature or make bad decisions. Life's experience does benefit individual decisions but this is a broader issue and I judge students as guards in a broader sense and based on observations in many institutions.
Steve Keller

 Subject: Re: student guards (Steve Keller: IntlArtCop@aol.com) In a message dated 3/30/98 12:33:31 PM, you wrote:
Brent C. Snider, CST, Director of Protection Services, Indianapolis Museum of Art commented that my attitude about student guards may be discriminatory, that I may be doing a disservice to the guard and the museum, and that Guards are no less reliable that anyone else.

Please let me clarify:
1. Not hiring student guards is not discriminatory under any law of the U.S. Age is an issue over 40 years only.
2. My point is not that student guards should not be used, only that MY experience (20 years in museum security, eight working in a museum with its own art college attached and a guard force that was as high as 350 guards during major exhibits, and being a consultant to over 200 museums including many with colleges), it is my opinion that you can generally get better overall protection for your collection if you hire professional guards with maturity and life's experience.
3. You are correct that you can supervise and train student guards. You can supervise and train prisoners, too, but who has the time. Joking, Brent, don't get upset. Seriously, most museums are short on supervisors and lack a training officer and find it difficult to administer a "difficult" schedule, so student guards are not for them. No hard feelings. No discrimination. Just a fact based on my experience INCLUDING at Indiana University, I might add.
4. I HAD excellent policies and procedures in Chicago. In fact, I had the first comprehensive policy manual of any major museum and it was widely distributed and forms the basis of many museum manuals today. We even had a line item in our budget to print and distribute to other museums our manual. But nevertheless, I still had problems with student guards. While I never personally had anyone walk in with a "shit happens" T-shirt on, I can guarantee you that if I did, it would not have been one of my 60 year old guards and it would probably be someone wearing green hair and earrings in his naval. Just my prejudice, I guess.
5. If you blow off the above, then pay close attention to this: After the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft in Boston, I was doing some consulting for them and as a result received a lot of press inquiries. One of the things that the press was trying to do was fix blame. And one of the things they kept hitting on was the fact that the Gardner used student guards. "Why didn't they use professionals?" "Why didn't they use people with life's experience?" One reporter told me, "If they would have had some crusty old 65 year old man on duty instead of some kids, they would not have fallen for the fake cop charade". It is hard for me to argue against that. My people in Chicago had a similar incident when someone came to the door claiming to be the Secret Service needing access at 10 pm at night due to some motorcade for the President on Michigan Avenue. My Night Manager politely told them to come back with Chicago Police with them, then he called the Chicago police who dispatched someone to check out the Agents before opening the doors. They checked out and they were angry. Tough! Their job it to protect the President. Ours is to protect our art. They have their problems and we have ours. I attribute maturity and life's experience to their ability to withstand the pressure and hold firm. You can't cover every situation with a policy! 6. Someone wrote in last week saying that we have a serious job and that we need to do the best for our employers that we can by hiring the best we can afford. I wanted to comment in support of that message but didn't do so because too many of my clients might be offended. But it's true. We spare no expense in hiring the best lighting consultant or international architect or we paint and repaint the gallery many times until we get it just right. But when it comes to hiring guards, the security program becomes a convenient location to place students who need to be placed as part of the work study program or a good place to hire guards for the ill-fated CETA program. (Remember CETA. If you hired a CETA employee --hard core unemployables--the government matched the funds. I had a dozen museums who ran out and hired CETA employees because they were cheap bodies). Why doesn't security get the first string for a change? Why do we always need to hire at the lowest wage from the most inexperienced manpower pool?
If you have a small gallery with a relatively inexpensive and unimportant collection, then hire whomever you want to protect it. But if you have $50 million dollars to protect, you better think twice about turning the building over to a couple of unarmed and, I might add, untrained, students. All due respects to your training program but you don't train your people well enough to protect a $50 million collection from the type of potential assault you might face by someone determined to take it over. People are walking into museums with guns these days. I'm not looking for goons to confront them but I want someone with maturity and common sense if only to handle the aftermath.
When I went to Chicago in 1979, the guard force was 90% male and night shifts were 100% male. Previous management recruited crusty old men with drinking problems except for one guy who had only one arm (couldn't carry a radio, flashlight and keys at the saem time) and five who didn't speak ANY English (and couldn't be trained or supervised in English). I changed that by looking for a diverse group of guards. I then studied all of them to see who really served our needs best. I found that the best guard was the female, age 45 to 50 who was just returning to the workforce after raising the kids. I found that NO security experience was better in a museum than "hard" security experience such as working as a guard on a construction site. "Retired" housewives were great managers, great diplomats, and made great supervisors after a year of experience. The next group I found to be exceptional were the retired mill workers, age 60 or higher, who appreciated being spoken to politely, working in a museum with 70 degree temperture and 50 percent relative humidity where they never got dirty hands. Treat them right and they would treat you right. They were used to getting out of bed in the morning and getting to work in the snow. But I also always maintained a few tough guys. Someone had to be willing and able to engage in confrontation if needed. It was rarely--but occasionally--needed. Who made the worst guards--in my personal opinion? Students. Teachers on summer break. And college grads. For a spell there, I recruited a number of people who had higher education. Few really worked out. Few stayed long enough to make their training worthwhile. I did have a few good students and a few good teachers and a few good college educated guards. But it was the mix that made my guard force strong. Don't be offended by my opinion, Brent, but maybe we are looking at this from different perspectives. There is a place in some museums for some student guards. But they should never be the basis of a guard force--in my opinion.
Steve Keller, CPP

Re: Lakota study ("The Performance of Temporary Protection Assistants as an Adjunct to the Guard Force at the Hirshhorn Museum"): Steve Keller IntlArtCop@aol.com

Roger:
Since the report you mention is(?) government property, perhaps you ought to discuss its public release with someone other than Dave Liston. It may be outdated but that is not for someone other than the museum's current security director to decide. If it isn't government property, I'm certain that whoever did the study with the permission of the government(?) was under some sort of obligation to keep it confidential and not distribute it. Just a thought
Steve Keller

In a message dated 3/28/98 2:32:00 AM, you wrote:
As an old museum-horse, I have some weird things in my library. One of them is a copy (probably one of the only copies - don't know if Dave Liston has one) of a Final Report/study done by Robert Lakota at the Smithsonian entitled "The Performance of Temporary Protection Assistants as an Adjunct to the Guard Force at the Hirshhorn Museum" 1975 and marked "administratively confidential." This document has a bearing on the recent discussion of students guards on the list - because these temporary assistants were half college graduates and half were seniors in college. The report was generally favorable to the function of these assistants - perhaps that's why its marked confidential - it went against the feelings of the Director of SI Guards at that time. If you are interested in the report, perhaps I could talk Dave into mailing a copy - 65 pages is too much to fax and I don't have a scanner to enter it into my computer.

From: IntlArtCop (IntlArtCop@aol.com) Subject:

Re: Dallas vandalism

In a message dated 3/19/98 1:46:19 PM, "MR. JOHN SANTILLI" (SANTILLJ@USNWC.EDU) wrote:
((In my opinion, a painting of this value deserves a protective housing sufficient to prevent this type of behavior. It should be "contracted" in that manner by those who would lend, lease, afford the showing in any other way. It should be written into the performance expectations of those in the decision process. It should be an clause in the insurance policy(s). Automated security when used with appropriate facilities and safeguards can be very cost effective. So therefore, I say no excuse for this ignorant neglect is excusable.))
Whew! You're tough! If it were only this easy, John.
Any protective housing would make it pretty tough for scholars and others to really see the art to study it up close. Even glazing diminishes the experience. We can't even get the insurers to require that borrowers have guards, let alone a requirement like you suggest. I'm not sure what you mean by automated security but you are right, electronic security can be cost effective but it is real tough to stop vandalism. I worked in a museum with 65,000 objects on display. Had they built protective cases and bought alarms and cameras for all of them, they wouldn't have been able to afford me! If we wanted to protect art from all risks we would simply display reproductions and lock away the originals. But we don't. We take the risk. And the reality is that we must sometimes take real risks because we can't afford perfect electronics or guards or cameras, etc. That's what makes our jobs interesting! I don't think I'd like a museum with everything in cases or behind barriers. Don't be so hard on the museum for having a loss. This type of thing is really quite rare when you think about all of the millions of visitors in all of the thousands of museums.
Steve Keller

 From: IntlArtCop (IntlArtCop@aol.com) Subject:

Re: Fire Suppression Systems/LowBidders

In a message dated 3/16/98 11:36:47 AM, you wrote:
((Arizona State Parks recently awarded the installation of a fire suppression system at the Riordan Mansion State Historic Park in Flagstaff, AZ. The contractor, a low bidder, was problematic from the very beginning and while testing the system damaged a wall and historic wallpaper. We pursued and received an insurance settlement from the contractor's insurance company. After the contract was complete a few months later they went bankrupt. We now have no warranty and are keeping our fingers crossed that everthing will work properly. The lesson here of course is not to take a low bidder necessarily and that it could cost more in the long run. ))
I see this sort of thing all the time, especially involving government agencies. As a security consultant, I compete with many other consultants--some are locksmiths designing fire systems, for example--who often prepare inadequate bid documents for the inadequate contractors to bid on. With private (non-givernmental) agencies, it is possible to pre-qualify bidders. This means that you can require that the installer have completed a certain number of previous jobs of the size and scope of yours using similar equipment or be a factory trained installer for a pre-qualified system, etc. And you can invite certain bidders to bid and exclude others. But governmental agencies don't have this advantage. Worse still--and I hope I don't offend any of my clients--procurement officers for government agencies are usually more interested in making their consultant jump through hoops than in helping them do the job they are delegating to them. I rarely ever feel that the procurement officer regards me as part of his or her team. We must bid low to get the job in the first place and when we (I mean the experienced consultants) are beat out by a low bid security or fire system designer, we often see that the specification prepared by the low bid consultant is inadequate. More time should be put into writing a good specification that clearly defines the system you need or want, the features it must have, how it is to be installed, the documentation the contractor is to provide (shop drawings for prior review before work begins and as-built drawings for review after the job is done) and the quality controls on how work is to occur. The spec should also require such safeguards as a performance bond to weed out those who can't qualify or to bond the job in case the contractor defaults. Thought must be given to how payments are to be made to the contractor so he has a stake in the job through to the end of the work and to assure tht there is enough money left to finish the job if the contractor defaults. In one recent job I did, the State procurement officer required that I, the system designer, be responsible for the system provided and installed by their low bid contractor. My contract said that I was responsible for doing as many re-tests and reviews of submittals (shop drawings and as builts) as necessary to assure that the work was adequate. The absurdity of this was that I was authorized to sign off on the system or accept the drawings! This means that as a reputable consultant, I was compelled by ethics (and to protect my reputation) to hang in there as long as it takes until the low bid contractor did a good job. This could be costly to me if the contractor didn't perform. But some fly by night consultant could bid lower than me knowing that he could just sign off on the job anytime he wants even if it was improperly installed! I rarely see bid documents address such issues as protection of historic fabric, and when they do, the wording is inadequate. I rarely see a requirement that the bidder meet some financial requirement. It is perfectly legitimate unless your procurement law forbids it to require that the company you select to install your system have good credit or pass a Dun Bradstreet credit check. On about half the jobs I do, I have to recommend to the client that they reject the low bidder. Most procurement officers don't want to pay the system designer any more than they have to, so the first thing that goes from the consultant's proposal is the pre-bid cost estimate. But if they do the job right, they will have their system designer do a formal cost estimate of the system he or she designs and submit it in advance of the bidding. Then, when bids are received you can see if one or more is excessively low. Excessively low bids should be looked at carefully, not as a gift from heaven. An excessively low bidder usually left something out. It is really difficult having to try to convince a museum Director to reject a low bidder but the job is easier if I can point to a cost estimate prepared in advance to show that a quality bidder was right on target. Government agencies rarely are able to reject the low bidder, however. Requiring that the contractor be bonded might have protected the client in the above example. You indicate that the contractor was problematic from the beginning. My best advice to you on this is that you need to be fair with your contractors but you need to be firm. I'm so sick of government agencies nitpicking their contractors to death. What happens is that they bid low then make up their losses on change orders or by cutting corners. I would much prefer that the job be clearly defined and that cost not be the sole determining factor in the decision to select a specific installer. BUT, make it clear that while you will be fair and expect the contractor to make a fair profit on the job, you will not put up with unfair or unreasonable costs for changes AND that you will WORK with the contractor so that he doesn't lose his shirt but that you will insist on him meeting the clearly defined terms of the spec with regard to products, submittals, substitutions, quality control, etc. For us consultants, this usually manifests itself with the contractor's submission of shop drawings. Even if I design a fully engineered system, I demand shop drawings. I don't care if the contractor takes my drawings and puts them on his titleblock and gives them back to me but I want shop drawings. I want him to prepare a document that tells me and his installers how the work will be done. I even sometimes make a minor error in my drawings to see if he catches it when he prepares his shop drawings. He damn well better because I make an obvious one just to see if he is awake. I define in the spec how I want the shop drawings submitted (format, quantities, what they are to include, etc.) and I check them very carefully point by point, wire by wire. This is my way of letting the contractor know that I won't accept poor quality or deviation from the spec. Sometimes this holds up the job--and the contractor's payment--for months. But when that process is done, the contractor knows what I will accept on the rest of the job. I do the same for any change order. I make the contractor itemize the costs of changes and I check them closely. This tells him I will look closely at what he is charging us. You should do the same. Of course, I get a lot of clients who don't want my scope of work to include the above reviews and inspections. I even get some who don't want me to come back at the end of the job and do an acceptance test! I can guarantee you that if you have a good spec, do thorough reviews, and thoroughly check change orders, you will more than pay for the cost of those services and you'll have a better system. I can also guarantee you that if a procurement officer says he or she will do these reviews, they won't get done or they won't mean diddly (for you Europeans, "diddly" is one of those big, technical words consultants use). I hope that this information is useful to readers of this list. Last time I took the time to post an indepth comment referring to my experience as a consultant, I got blasted by one reader who thinks I shouldpay for "advertisements". So if this comment offends you, don't take my advice. Seriously, this is good advice and its free! That's even better than low bid!
Steve Keller
Security Consultant
IntlArtCop@aol.com

 From: IntlArtCop IntlArtCop@aol.com
Subject: Re:

access behind public galleries

In a message dated 3/10/98 1:50:16 AM, you wrote:
<>
This depends upon what you mean by "behind the scenes" areas. Children should not tbe allowed in collection storage areas. College aged people sometimes have a legitimate reason to be in collection storage areas for classes but museums with better policies and procedures require that security officers be present on a ratio of 1 officer to every 10 students plus one professional staff member (not just a docent). Tours of collection storage should be closely controlled and conducted for good reason. there is great vulnerability with people in collection storage.

<>
No! Well, actually, since security in many museums is totally inadequate, it does happen. But it should not happen! Artists--and I assume you mean copy artists--should be closely controlled and this means working in public galleries during public hours. Scholars should not be allowed to work unaccompanied. I have seen soooo many problems with scholars! Trust me! Your colleagues cover the problems up and don't admit to being burned by scholars but I hear of it after the fact to help resolve the problem. It happens several times each year that I know of.

<>
When non-employees are allowed in back of the house areas like collection storage, photos are not permitted.
Museums associated with colleges are the ones that have the loosest policies in this regard.
Steve Keller
Museum Security Consultant
22 Foxfords Chase
Ormond Beach, FL 32174

From: IntlArtCop@aol.com
Subject:

Re: art loans to politicians

For what it is worth, loans of art to politicians occurs in the U.S. as well as abroad. As a security consultant, I can't violate the confidentiality to talk about who is doing it, but I can tell you that more than a few times I have been involved in projects to: 1. find missing art that has been on loan to offices and homes, 2. advise on how to secure art on loan to offices and homes or to survey the offices or homes prior to a loan, and 3. render an opinion that a loan to a politician is absolutely out of the question for security reasons. I am asked to render this opinion so that the museum director doesn't have to be the one to say "no."
Steve Keller, CPP
Security Consultant
22 Foxfords Chase
Ormond Beach, FL 32174 USA
(904) 673-9973


From: IntlArtCop@aol.com
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 12:52:43 EST
To: securma@xs4all.nl

Re:COPYRIGHT; Request for pointers for an interested amateur

Regarding the request for information about copyright of works of art and rights to reproductions, this is a very complex issue and entire seminars have been devoted to the various aspects of it. In theory, the museum can restrict reproduction of the work of art that you describe, even though it is "out of copyright" by virture of its age. But this is not always the case. In the U.S., at least, some works fell into the public domain long ago and because the user was not challenged or the museum made little real effort to protect their rights, the museum would have great difficulty in arguing that they control the rights to reproduction. Example: Grant Woods' picture of a farmer and his wife (American Gothic) that has been used literally thousands of times including on corn flakes boxes when we were kids. I doubt the Art Institute of Chicago would be successful in protesting its use again. If, however, you used someone's photo of that work of art, the photo is, in all probability, copyrighted and you could be restricted from using it. And, as Ton said in his post, museums restrict the use of tripods and quality cameras and lights needed to make a good enough copy of a painting to put in a book or on a poster. If you wre to go into the Art Institute of Chicago and violate the "Camera Permit" requirement in order to photograph the Grant Wood, they could probably make a case about their rights. That's why most museums have a camera permit process and a process to control copyists who want to paint a reproduction. If a work of art is relatively unknown and in the public domain except for the museum's claim that, as owners, they control rights to reproduction, then your best bet is to negotiate with the museum for limited rights to produce a poster. Most museums have a "Rights and Reproductions Office" so give them a call. I happen to know that some museums are very greedy and will try to jack the price up for use of a work of art unrealistically. I've written articles for trade publications (for free) and needed a photo to go along with the article and have been appalled by the price of some photos even though I was not getting paid and the photo and articles promoted the museum. I've even had this problem when the museum ASKED me to write the article. So don't expect much from them. They are a revenue producing office. Smaller museums tend ot be more cooperative and realistic. You may find information in the American Association of Museums bookstore or you may be able to call a major museum's Rights and Reproductions Office and ask to be educated.
Steve Keller
Security Consultant
22 Foxfords Chase
Ormond Beach, Florida USA 32174
(904) 673-9973
IntlArtCop@aol.com