[200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY

Fri Jan 11 15:39:32 EST 2013

Hello Matt,

Thank you for your report on the evening.  It was diabolical.  Why do we, as
you state, continue to put ourselves and others at risk by having goons from
the outside come into our building and end up in a drug induced, alcoholic
state.....on level 7?

It's simply too dangerous for the owners to risk some visiting idiot falling
over the side of the building on New Year's eve.  Let us assume
responsibility for each of our own balconies but why are the owners put into
a potential lawsuit situation because of the idiots?

I'm all for closing the level 7 area on New Year's eve.  The last thing I
want is some strange body falling and having to be scrapped off my terrace
in the morning......along with cigarette butts!!

Cheers,

Craig

From: ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] On Behalf
Of Matt Perkins
Sent: Friday, 11 January 2013 2:35 PM
To: ec at 200william.com
Subject: Re: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY

Agree it's a good offer from George. (Im not sure it's entirely BFMS's
fault) Just seemed to be one of those things that happen.    I was on the
ground with security a few time's that night. Security guys were ok. But the
task they have is not  a simple one. There main problem this year was an
apartment on the ground floor had some very young very drunk guests. These
guests were so drunk they would have not have passed the RSA test at any
licensed venue and would have been required to leave. 

My estimate is that most people on the roof were guests of tenants from the
south side building.  Renters. I didnt see any owners up there.  Most of the
trouble came not when the Fireworks were on but between the fireworks.  The
young drunk's from Ground floor were in and out and up and down the lifts
constantly  spilling drinks on there way.  (that's where the stains on the
new carpet came from)  I booted people out of the Gym bathroom twice that I
found doing drugs. The bathroom facilities are not large enough for that
quantity of guests in any case. Especialy when alcohol is involved. 

Going forward if we were to continue the way we are going we need an
intoxication criteria. Security should have licensed venue type endorsements
on there security license any guest deemed intoxicated should be refused
entry to the roof. If they are on the roof and judged intoxicated should be
asked to leave if they do not police should be called. 

Alternatively we should consider not allowing any roof access for NYE.
Simply program the system not to accept swipes on the night lock the doors.
No need for security extra expense or perhaps leave us open to litigation
should some one be injured on NYE.  As most people attending were not owners
anyway Im thinking perhaps that's not a big problem. Worst case we could say
owners only no tenants that's going to limit it to the bare few. 

Another option may also be to only allow people on the roof 10 minutes
before and 10 minutes after the fireworks. This would still need guards to
enforce but we are talking 1 hour of roof time  a lot less time for things
to happen it's a measure of threat mitigation. 

Personalty I think we should lock up the roof on NYE and not allow access.
That way we dont need to pay for security. We dont need to get sued when
some drunk 17 year old smashes a beer bottle over the head of someone or any
number of things that could go wrong when you mix young people and large
quantities of alcohol.  It also stop's people running up and down to the
roof all night which takes up the lifts etc etc.  It much more trouble then
it's worth. 

Matt.

On 11/01/13 1:28 PM, CSCL wrote:

Thank you for the offer George to split the cost of the security charge.  I
think that is very fair.

And yes, I agree it's time to change the security people.  As I mentioned
this morning when I saw you, they did not check who was coming into the
building and were not vigilant with people on level 7.  We had 6 cigarette
butts thrown down onto my terrace.  When we asked the culprits to stop, they
continued to throw butts down.  Clearly, this 'security' team were not doing
their work.

Cheers,

Craig Laforest

From: ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] On Behalf
Of George Ziri
Sent: Friday, 11 January 2013 11:06 AM
To: ec at 200william.com
Subject: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY

Good Morning All,

On New Years Eve we learnt that security did not have a guest list for the
apartments. When I looked into the matter today we found that the email with
the guest list and rules for the security to enforce did not go through to
the security company. The file was to large. 

Security on the night improvised and partoled all areas randomly.

Over all the night was a success without incident.

This year we will bring the guest list register date early one week so that
we can provide security 1 weeks notice instead of 1 day. This will iron out
any issues or queries before the night.

As BFMS feel responsible for this matter, we will absorb half the cost of
the security invoice.

I hope this is received favourably.

.

________________________________________________________ 
George Ziri | Operations

Building Facilities Management Solutions Pty Ltd

Direct: 0400 300 242 | Facsimile: 9547 3132 | PO BOX A2319 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW
1235

visit us  <http://www.bfms.com.au> www.bfms.com.au

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
EC at 200william.com
http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec

-- 
/* Matt Perkins 
        Direct 1300 137 379     Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd. 
        Office 1300 133 299     matt at spectrum.com.au 
        Fax    1300 133 255     Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
        SIP 1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au 
        PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at  http://pgp.mit.edu 
*/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20130111/ace92537/attachment-0001.html 