The “Fractional” Security Manager

Posted on 12, Mar | Posted by Martin F. Coolidge

The “Fractional” Security Manager:

A Cost Effective Approach to Managing Security

Fractional Security Manager I have met with a large number of business leaders – especially in small business – over the years because of a security issues they faced such as internal theft, threat to executives, employee malfeasance, compliance issues, or other security problems. These issues turned into the need for an investigation and/or an assessment to determine what happened and how to prevent future incidents. What I have observed is that most of these problems could have been prevented through the use of sound security practices. The lack of a competent security plan is usually due to lack of industry knowledge and typically due to the lack of a security manager. By security manager, I mean someone dedicated to the position, not someone simply appointed as such, which seems to be common in many small to medium-sized companies.

Security events are not accidental but are the deliberate actions of employees and/or non-employees who have the motivation to take or destroy an asset because they perceive there is no guardianship over that asset. They often take place without warning, requiring quick-minded response. Sometimes security events can develop from minor issues and failures – security events that might have been avoidable with proper security controls in place.

Security is also about people. It’s not about whether a tree branch may fall onto a roof; it’s about how that tree branch is making it easier to gain access to the roof. It’s about deterrence, target hardening, proactively seeking out security lapses and addressing them, properly investigating the incidents that do occur to resolve them, and identifying and installing safeguards to prevent future such incidents. It includes making security a part of company culture. For this to occur, there has to be a competent level of knowledge of current security issues and practices.

If security is not of high importance to a company, it can expect that some people – employees included – will take advantage of them because they are vulnerable. We have seen high-paid executives steal hundreds of thousands of dollars from their employer because the security lapse was so significant it was too inviting to pass up.

A good security program can reduce a company’s exposure to loss, help make risk more manageable, and increase the safety of employees and visitors. However, a good security program needs an effective security manager. For some companies, this is often not practical. For many small businesses, physical security is limited to the obvious: locking doors at night, installing a few CCTV cameras, and installing intrusion alarms. Unfortunately for many of these companies, this is the extent of their security program, making them more vulnerable and more prone to an incident. Many of them already have a security issue in progress and are not even aware of it.

One approach for a small business is to utilize an existing manager or supervisor and then add security duties to that person’s job description, with or without additional salary. However, a title does not bring industry knowledge and it is not what builds a proper security program. There are too many variables in play to expect a job description to create effective security solutions that protect your company’s assets and economic advantage. A security manager is someone educated, trained, and experienced in applying the principles of security, not a human resource representative that took a few “security” courses. To believe otherwise is to not take security seriously.

Another approach is to hire a security manager with the education, training, and experience to create an effective security program. A security manager can help make a business run more efficiently because security issues are addressed before they become problems, employees and vendors know someone is watching, and problems like workplace violence and internal theft can be minimized. While this is a common business practice for larger companies, it is not cost effective for smaller businesses, whose bottom line is usually fairly thin. Every company could benefit by employing a security manager – some just cannot afford to do so. A security manager is likely to cost around $100,000 per year or more with salary and benefits. This cost is absorbed in large business settings where losses could easily total much more than that. An alternative is to find a security manager willing to work part-time, but it is rare to find someone with the requisite skill-set willing to work part-time. It is difficult enough to find a full-time security manager who individually possesses the expertise necessary to effectively manage all of the aspects of a comprehensive security program.

There is a third approach: “lease” a security manager through a professional service agreement (PSA). This is accomplished by contracting with a security consulting company that can provide a security manager with the education, training and experience needed to competently fulfill the position. In our current economy, many companies are switching to “fractional” titles to save money. A PSA provides an economical and efficient solution to security management needs. It is economical because the cost is a fraction of what it costs to employ a full-time, salaried security manager. It is efficient because a company pays only for the time expended on security-related matters as directed by the company, unlike a full-time security manager that is paid 40 hours per week regardless of how the time is used. Under a PSA a company does not pay a full-time salary and does not pay benefits. With a “leased” security manager the company gets the services of a security professional that can conduct professional security assessments, provide loss control, oversee installation of technology, interview employees, create policies, assist HR during terminations, conduct pre-employment background screening, escort individuals from company property, investigate incidents, liaise with law enforcement when necessary, and provide any other security-related function deemed necessary by the company. Similar to a security manager, the “leased” security manager works for and at the direction of the company. Under a PSA model, companies have a security manager who has “real world” experience. The PSA is tailored to create an effective security program, to fit the company’s culture, and to be cost effective and sustainable.

Another benefit of a PSA agreement is that, depending on the “leasing” organization, the company gets the investigative and administrative support that complements a security and investigations program. This is something large companies with security managers rarely have. With the right organization, the company retains an entire division of security and investigations professionals at their disposal complete with security experts, design experts, and former police investigators, complete with thousands of hours of professional law enforcement, security and military training.

So how does a PSA work? Each PSA is tailored to meet the needs and budget of each individual company. It starts with an evaluation of security needs based on current security posture, trends in the community, company history, vulnerability and exposure, industry, annual hiring rate, and interviews with company officials. A minimum monthly rate that fits the company’s budget – the base rate – is agreed on for which time and expenses are incurred. Services are anything related to security that a company requests, such as workplace violence and other training programs, internal and external investigation, employee investigation, outplacement of terminated employees, background investigations, security assessments, threat assessments, policy development, review/check security systems operations, card readers/keypad systems, CCTV, oversee installation of new systems, creation of security related documents, reports and logs, and many other services. PSAs not only help businesses achieve effective security solutions but they can also be used to provide training and expert security consulting to existing security directors and security managers.

Failure to properly address security is like driving without insurance: you’re gambling your personal worth on a hope that a mistake is not made by you or someone else. Most likely that failure is driven by company economics. With a fractional security manager under a PSA, security management can not only be achieved, it is cost-effective.

Continue reading

Termination Guidelines

Posted on 16, Oct | Posted by Julius Stanley Carroll, CPP, CFE

pink slipTerminations are often a stressful situation, both for the terminated employee and for the individual responsible for conducting the termination. Listed below are some guidelines that could help diffuse volatile situations and make the process run more smoothly.

  1. Always plan the termination. Think it through.
  2. Always have two supervisors/managers present during the termination. The meeting should be cordial and professional but also attempt to accommodate the employee’s feelings and concerns. Regardless of whether the employee becomes angry or upset, do not resort to harsh words or language.
  3. If you feel the termination might become heated, contact security and discuss prior to the termination. If you don’t have a security director, obtain guidance from a company like RMA that has security professionals who have participated in hundreds of outplacements.
  4. If the employee is known to be highly volatile and potentially prone to violence, consider having security present and ensure you have an appropriate plan to respond to those concerns. Provide reason(s) for the termination. However, do not engage in a debate. The decision has been made and arguments should be avoided.
  5. Carefully choose the room to be used for the termination.
    • When possible use a room with two access points.
    • Remove or hide things that can be used as a weapon. Keep the room “clean” (sanitize).
    • The setting should be private. Allow the employee to retain their dignity.
  6. Try to avoid Thursday and Friday as a day for the termination. Monday and Tuesday is better. Select a time during the day when there are fewer employees around.
  7. If offering a separation package, avoid a detailed review of the package at the termination meeting. The employee will likely remember little of that discussion. Do, however, tell the employee that the package is confidential and must not be discussed with others.
  8. If the termination goes as planned:
    • Retrieve all company property i.e. keys, ID badge, monies, etc.
    • Do not let the individual go back to his or her personal workspace but ascertain if the individual has personal belongings such as a purse or medications that you need to retrieve for them. Advise the individual all their personal property will be mailed/shipped to them.
    • Do not let the individual leave the facility and come back into the facility.
    • Walk the individual out of the facility and watch them leave the property but do it in a cordial way.
    • Notify the proper facility managers of the termination so the individual can’t get back into the facility.
    • Have the individual removed from the card access system immediately
  9. If the termination becomes heated, never challenge or argue with the employee.
    • Advise the individual to leave the property. If they don’t comply, call 911.
    • Do nor challenge or argue.
    • Report to HR and Safety/Security immediately.
    • Be prepared to go into lock-down.
Continue reading

The Clery Act – Costs of Noncompliance

Posted on 24, Sep | Posted by Christine L. Peterson, CPP, ISP

Jeanne Clery

Photo obtained from http://clerycenter.org/.

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(2011), is a federal statute requiring colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to maintain and disclose campus crime statistics and security information. The U.S. Department of Education conducts reviews to evaluate an institution’s compliance with Clery Act requirements. A review may be initiated when a complaint is received, a media event raises certain concerns, the school’s independent audit identifies serious noncompliance, or through a review selection process that may also coincide with state reviews performed by the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Service (CJIS) Audit Unit.

The shooting and death of 32 students and faculty on the campus of Virginia Tech served as a stark reminder of the seriousness with which the Department of Education views the Clery Act. In March 2011, the Department of Education fined Virginia Tech $55,000 for failing to follow its stated policies regarding the issuance of timely warnings. This is particularly noteworthy because Virginia Tech had and generally followed a fairly well-developed crisis communication plan. Nevertheless, because it failed to follow its procedures to the letter, it was found to have violated the Clery Act.

It was also cited for failure to issue a timely warning in response to the first two shootings at West Ambler Johnston residence hall. This is also noteworthy because, according to Department of Education’s findings, the first officers arrived on scene at West Ambler Johnston residence hall at 7:24 a.m. Less than one hour later, the university’s policy group convened to determine how to notify the university community. Practically speaking, the effort to gather the pertinent facts and assemble the advisory group on less than one hour’s notice was nothing short of monumental. Nevertheless, it was ultimately deemed deficient.

As imposing as the fine against Virginia Tech may be, it is far from the largest sanction ever imposed. Clery authorizes the assessment of fines of up to $35,000 per violation. (Penalties increased from $27,500 per violation to $35,000 per violation in 2012.) In 2004, Department of Education handed down a then-record setting penalty of $250,000 against Salem International University for under-reporting campus crime over a two year period. Three years later, Department of Education set a new record when it issued a $375,000 penalty against Eastern Michigan University.

The goal of Clery compliance is not simply to follow the rules to avoid fines, but to help people stay informed and safe.

Collectively, this statutory and regulatory scheme, commonly referred to as “The Clery Act,” imposes a number of disclosure requirements on postsecondary education institutions. These requirements generally fall into three main categories: (1) the Clery crime statistics and security-related policy requirements, which must be met by all institutions; (2) the Clery crime log requirement, for institutions with campus police or security departments; and (3) the HEOA missing student notification and fire safety requirements, for institutions that have at least one on-campus student housing facility. While these laws permit a certain degree of flexibility in the manner in which compliance is achieved, the requirement for complete and timely compliance is absolute. As already stated, failure to do so can result in civil penalties of up to $35,000 per violation for substantial misrepresentations of the number, location, or nature of crimes required to be reported, or for violation of any other safety- and security-related provision of the HEA.

Since 1988, Risk Management Associates has been a security advocate for businesses and agencies including colleges and universities across the country. The Clery Act is a critical piece of the security program of all colleges and universities, and yet even after the tragic events at Virginia Tech, Penn State, Yale, and many other institutions of higher learning, too often there is a lot of misunderstanding and misdirected efforts with regard to Clery Act compliance. Why is this, and what can be done to improve the effectiveness of security programs and Clery Act compliance at colleges and universities? This is the million dollar question. There are two very diverse elements of any successful security program that we believe are at play in these cases.

First, security programs protect people and assets from deliberate actions of other people. The Clery Act in its most very basic terms is an effort to provide college students and their families with intelligence to make the best college choice by providing information about security. This includes specified security and communication policy disclosures and in some cases crime logs, missing student notification information, and fire safety information. However this is just the beginning. Because the application of the requirements of the Clery Act is dynamic, the mechanisms used to collect and publish data are constant and require an equal if not greater effort to ensure compliance. This requires the college or university to acknowledge and address security issues and ideally create some form of a comprehensive security program.

Second, a successful security program starts at the top of any organization where the resources are available to set the tone, communicate the messaging to all stakeholders, and provide the resources that will be required for success. Too often, administrators may not understand the criticality of Clery Act compliance to the college in the form of the protection of human assets, reputation, and federal funding. Unlike many compliance areas, Clery Act compliance requires a concerted effort and resources that supersede silos and departments and requires buy-in by all stakeholders. Later in this article, we will talk about some of the fines that have been assessed for non-compliance. Monetary fines are important, but the real cost is in the unnecessary or avoidable human costs, reputation, and lost enrollment that is the repercussion of a lapse in the safeguards put in place by the Clery Act.

Human Costs

Consider the case of Liberty University. On Feb. 20, 2005, a female student reported to the Liberty University Police Department (LUPD) that she had been sexually assaulted on February 12 and 13. On March 28, Liberty issued trespassing papers to one of the assailants, indicating that the University believed that there was a possible threat to the campus community; however, Liberty University did not issue a warning to the campus community about that danger. On April 13, a female student was attacked by three males in the same general area as the assault in February. She reported the attack to LUPD on April 13 and provided a written statement on April 18. Still, no campus warning was issued. In May 2005, a student reported to the LUPD that she had been gang-raped. As part of the review, Liberty did not provide any evidence that a timely warning was considered or issued with regard to the alleged May 2005 sexual assault.

According to the fine letter issued by the Department of Education, “it is essential to students, employees, and the public that institutions provide timely warnings as frequently and systematically as needed to ensure the safety and well-being of the campus community.”

Another example is Notre Dame College of Ohio. On Oct. 10, 2005, a female student sent a letter to the Dean of Student Development stating that she had been sexually assaulted in her dorm room four weeks earlier. The Dean met with the student a few days later, and the student stated that she was reluctant to have the incident reported to her parents, the police, or other school officials. Less than a month later on October 31, a second female student reported to the Dean that she had been sexually assaulted in her dorm room three days earlier. She also requested that no legal or judicial action should be taken and her parents should not be informed.

At the time, Notre Dame did not have a policy for deciding whether to issue a timely warning or standards for when a timely warning should be issued. As a campus security authority, the Dean determined that no timely campus warning was required because the incidents did not represent a threat. On November 23, the Dean verbally notified the Police/Security Department about the two reported sexual assaults and followed up with a written notification on November 28. On December 12 and December 14, the two students separately contacted the Police/Security Department and identified their assailants. A warning was issued on December 13, nine weeks after the first incident was reported to campus authorities. After the warning, four additional complaints against the suspect were brought forward.

The assessment by the Department of Education found that “the occurrence of two similar crimes within a short period of time was certainly evidence that the crimes were a threat to students and employees. It was very clear that members of the campus community needed to take precaution and protect themselves.”

Could additional incidents have been prevented if a timely warning had been issued and if the information had been made public? What was the cost of not providing a timely warning?

Financial Costs

In the past five years (2008-2012), the following colleges and universities were fined for noncompliance with the Clery Act.

  • Dominican College of Blauvelt (2012) $262,500
  • University of Texas at Arlington (2011) $82,500
  • University of North Dakota (2011) $115,000
  • Yale University (2011) $155,000
  • University of Vermont (2011) $65,000
  • University of Northern Iowa (2011) $110,000
  • Washington State University (2011) $82,500
  • Virginia Tech (2010) $55,000
  • Liberty University (2010) $165,000
  • Notre Dame College of Ohio (2010) $165,000
  • Wesley College (2010) $60,000
  • Schreiner University (2009) $55,000
  • Tarleton State University (2009) $137,500
  • Paul Smith’s College of Arts & Sciences (2008) $260,000

Fines were imposed for:

  • Failure to have a timely warning policy
  • Failure to issue a timely warning
  • Failure to include in the ASR a statement of current policies encouraging pastoral and professional counselors about procedures for reporting crimes confidentially
  • Failure to include in the ASR a statement advising the campus community where information concerning registered sex offenders may be obtained
  • Failure to include in the ASR a statement of current campus policies for reporting criminal actions or emergencies on campus
  • Failure to include in the ASR a statement of policy regarding sexual assault programs
  • Failure to include in the ASR a statement that the accuser and the accused are entitled to have others present during a disciplinary proceeding
  • Failure to include in the ASR complete and adequate policy statements
  • Failure to maintain an accurate and complete crime log
  • Failure to open the crime log to a student journalist
  • Failure to properly classify, compile, and disclose crime statistics
  • Failure to properly classify and report an incident
  • Failure to properly define the geographic boundaries for non-campus property
  • Failure to properly distribute the Annual Security Report
  • Failure to report disciplinary actions
  • Failure to report accurate crime statistics
  • Failure to report incidents
  • Lack of administrative capacity

Conclusion

In closing, it is important to understand that the Jeanne Clery Act is here to stay. Over the next twelve to twenty-four months, we expect to see additional legislation and requirements added to it. One area that we will see this legislation focus will be Title IX compliance that will focus on the athletic programs within the colleges and universities. DOE is also expected to raise the level of scrutiny at colleges who rely on internal audits and investigations with regards to their compliance programs because of the self-serving aspect of self-compliance and may require that colleges seek outside consultants to perform the administrative investigations. In addition, colleges and universities are being held to a higher standard of care due to past events that have put us all on notice that the threats are real and if the past is the best predictor of the future will occur again. This requires that colleges and universities have in place – or can show that they are putting in place – a comprehensive security program. By complying with the requirements of the Clery Act, colleges and universities are putting in place many of the elements of a comprehensive security plan that is necessary to protect their human and reputational assets which are the foundations of any institution of education. Failure to do so exposes the institution to substantial monetary penalties as well as the loss of critical assets including the trust of their stakeholders.

Continue reading

RMA Completes Security Assessment of RTP

Posted on 18, Sep | Posted by RMA

Risk Management Associates, Inc. has completed a security assessment of Research Triangle Park. The Research Triangle Foundation has developed and is in the process of implementing a new master development plan for the Research Triangle Park (RTP) community. As a critical component of that plan, the foundation decided to conduct a security assessment to provide stakeholders with the current security posture of RTP. A security assessment is one of the most cost effective means to assess the current security people, processes, and technology that are in place today and plan for the security needs of the community moving forward.

The Research Triangle Park is home to more than 170 global companies – including IBM, GSK, Syngenta, RTI International, Credit Suisse, and Cisco – that foster a culture of scientific advancement and competitive excellence. RTP is located between three major universities: Duke University in Durham, North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Through five decades, the Park still holds to its founders’ aspirations: to generate economic activity, engage the talents of local graduates and citizens and carry North Carolina forward to ever-greater prominence and prosperity.

Continue reading

RMA Presents Bring-Your-Own-Device Policies at RTP CFO Forum

Posted on 6, Sep | Posted by RMA

Chris Peterson and http://www.rmasecurity.com/about-rma/team-profiles/russell-w-gilmore/ presented BYOD (Bring Your Own Device): Issues and Implications for Companies at the September RTP CFO Forum. The program discussed security issues and considerations for companies when employees connect personal devices to the company network. What issues need to be considered to accommodate lawsuits, audits, and records requests? How can companies prepare for lost or stolen devices? What steps can and should be taken when terminating employees?

The RTP CFO Forum serves the greater Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill region, supporting over 200 senior financial executives. The Forum is designed to provide interactive networking and discussion of technical and strategic topics in an environment created exclusively for senior-level peers. CPE is provided on select topics.

The RTP CFO FORUM is scheduled for the first Friday of every month, from 7:30AM – 9:00AM. Attendance is limited to CFOs or senior financial professionals in similar positions. The RTP CFO Forum is sponsored by Hughes Pittman & Gupton, LLP.

Continue reading

Zoetis GSOC Needs Assessment Project Awarded

Posted on 27, Aug | Posted by RMA

Risk Management Associates, Inc. has been requested by Zoetis to develop a Needs Assessment for a Global Security Operations Center.

The assessment will define the mission, goals and objectives of the GSOC. Additionally, this assessment will include defining the support requirements of the GSOC that include personnel, technology and operations. Once the Needs Assessment is complete, Zoetis will be able to make decisions about the GSOC location, design elements, infrastructure, specific technologies and implementation strategies.

Zoetis discovers, develops, manufactures and commercializes a diverse portfolio of animal health medicines and vaccines designed to meet the real-world needs of veterinarians and the livestock farmers and companion animal owners they support. Zoetis, formerly a business unit of Pfizer, is a global animal health company dedicated to supporting customers and their businesses in ever better ways. Building on 60 years of experience, Zoetis delivers quality medicines and vaccines, complemented by diagnostics products and genetics tests and supported by a range of services. Zoetis is working every day to better understand and address the real-world challenges faced by those who raise and care for animals in ways they find truly relevant.

Continue reading

Security in the Office – A Checklist

Posted on 30, Jul | Posted by Christine L. Peterson, CPP, ISP

  • Comply with and support your company’s safety and security program and regulations, and insist that others do the same.
  • Protect wallets, keys, purses, and other personal valuables on the job. This especially includes smartphones and tablets.
  • Challenge strangers in restricted areas. The best way to approach this is from a helpful perspective, such as “Can I help you?”
  • Do not discuss company affairs off the job.
  • When leaving the office, even for a short period of time, clean up and secure your work space, with special attention to confidential documents. Also provide for the protection of company equipment assigned to you.
  • If you handle money as a part of your job, insist on positive identification before you cash checks, and refuse obviously counterfeit or questionable currency.
  • If you work in a retail establishment or any other business, guard against shoplifting and employee theft within the frameworks of the law. To deter shoplifting, speak to all customers in your area. Be wary of bulky coats, large shopping bags, partially opened umbrellas, and folded newspapers. Know your company’s policy on dealing with shoplifters, and adhere to it.
  • Make certain your employer has clear and adequate guidelines for handling complaints of sexual harassment.
  • Retain security guards, because they provide a substantial deterrent to the criminal’s expectation of success.
Continue reading

Security Assessment of RTP

Posted on 10, Jun | Posted by RMA

Risk Management Associates, Inc. will be conducting a security assessment of Research Triangle Park. The Research Triangle Foundation has developed and is in the process of implementing a new master development plan for the Research Triangle Park (RTP) community. As a critical component of that plan, the foundation needs to conduct a security assessment that will provide the stakeholders with the current security posture of RTP. A security assessment is one of the most cost effective means to assess the current security people, processes, and technology that are in place today and plan for the security needs of the community moving forward.

The Research Triangle Park is home to more than 170 global companies – including IBM, GSK, Syngenta, RTI International, Credit Suisse, and Cisco – that foster a culture of scientific advancement and competitive excellence. RTP is located between three major universities: Duke University in Durham, North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Through five decades, the Park still holds to its founders’ aspirations: to generate economic activity, engage the talents of local graduates and citizens and carry North Carolina forward to ever-greater prominence and prosperity.

Continue reading

Campus Alert – Lessons from Lone Star College System

Posted on 24, May | Posted by Tasha D. Dyson

On January 22, 2013, gunshots were heard on the North Harris campus of Lone Star College System. It was later learned that an altercation between to individuals (one of whom may have been a student) had escalated to gun violence. The shooters were injured along with an innocent bystander.

Incidents such as this immediately bring to mind topics such as crime, gun control, workplace violence, weapons on campus, mental health issues, or law enforcement response – topics which are covered extensively in the media and will not be discussed here.

What we noticed was the alert system of Lone Star College System.

During the lockdown on January 22, visitors to the homepage of Lone Star College System saw this:

Lone Star College System Alert

Important information about the current situation was included at the top of the page surrounded by a red outline. More general emergency information was included lower on the page with links to Lone Star’s Office of Emergency Management and the LSCS Emergency Preparedness Guide. Specific information topics included Personal Preparedness Checklist, Tips for People with Special Needs or Disabilities, Weather Emergencies, Terrorism, Building Explosion, Bomb Threats, Shelter in Place, Epidemic, Preventing Crime, Contact Information, and Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs). A link to the standard “non-lockdown” homepage of Lone Star College System was also included.

Based on the design of the page, it appears that Lone Star College System has created an alert template to be used in an emergency situation. With this arrangement, college representatives can simply add relevant information and activate the page, thereby increasing the speed with which they can provide information to students, faculty, staff, and visitors. Although we did not test it, the design of this page suggests that it would be easily viewed on a mobile device or a tablet.

We do not know what other communication methods were used by Lone Star College System, if any, and used alone, this website replacement may not be a comprehensive notification strategy.

However, when used in conjunction with other means of notification such as phone, text, and email, this alert webpage is a fast and efficient was to communicate information to students, faculty, staff, visitors, and the general public.

On April 9, 2013, the CyFair campus of Lone Star College System was placed on lockdown because of an individual who stabbed fourteen people. During the incident, the main webpage of Lone Star College System was again replaced with an “alert” page. Although the design of the page had changed slightly from January to April, the important information was present and highly visible.

Continue reading

RMA Awarded Project for RockTenn

Posted on 23, May | Posted by RMA

RMA has been awarded a project to audit the security staffing requirements of the Fernandina Beach Facility and the Seminole Mill Facility. This audit will develop findings and recommendations for staffing needs at each facility.

RockTenn is one of North America’s leading producers of corrugated and consumer packaging and recycling solutions. Based in Norcross, Ga., RockTenn employs approximately 26,000 people and operate more than 240 facilities in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Argentina and China.

Continue reading