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

Fri Jan 11 16:41:08 EST 2013

Hi Everyone,

This is my first response to all this new year's saga.

Well,  it's all well said and done, and few comments are not sinking in
my mind. Let face it the building has been there for 12 years so it
survived 12 new years  and so far the arrangements put in place did work
and we never had any issues. It is clear that this year the security
filed and wasn't up to the task so that is where the problem is and was
for this year. So George needs to make sure that in future a proper
security is in place.

Now in response to comments form Matt and Craig, I do respect them as a
principle but? Guys let's face it, whether you want or not the majority
of the owners are investors and their asset is the premium that they
bought into, the building with views. So that is what attracts many
tenants and there is tenants rights that can't be ignored. Give access
to the roof to owners only? Please give me a break.

From: ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] On
Behalf Of Matt Perkins
Sent: Friday, 11 January 2013 4:19 PM
To: CSCL
Cc: ec at 200william.com
Subject: Re: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY

One thing I would say about NYE and closing the roof. If we do indeed
close the roof it's fair that we vote on it early and let residence know
with plenty of time to make other arrangements for NYE. It's hard to
find somewhere nice to go close to NYE. I think we need to start telling
people in early November to be fair. 

On 11/01/13 3:39 PM, CSCL wrote:

	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 www.bfms.com.au <http://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

	*/

-- 
/* 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/20130111/19561941/attachment-0001.html 