Privatization of County Courthouse Security—Approved 2 to 1
What is included in Sheriff Crider’s proposal to privatize court security?
(Part 3 of 3)
Even at the second bite at the apple, the Sheriff did not provide sufficient information to the Commissioners needed to make a decision on his proposal to privatize courthouse security. Sheriff Crider promised to obtain it within 24 hours, so the decision was delayed to a third meeting held the next day, September 30th. He then provided estimates to the Commissioners that he obtained from a private security company in the Tri-Cities. On that basis, and after Commissioner Fulmer stated that Courthouse security was not law enforcement, the Commissioners voted. Commissioner Clayton initially moved to deny the Sheriff’s proposal. This didn’t even get a second from Commissioners Kimball and Fulmer. Then the motion was made to approve and was passed, with Commissioner Clayton being the nay vote.
What was disclosed after all this mess on a touchy subject:
The contract did not have to go through the RFP process of competitive bidding despite the stipulation in the Sheriff’s initial proposal that it do so. County lawyers advised it wasn’t required since the contract was for professional services.
The two part-time Courthouse security guards were fired by the Sheriff the day before the resolution was approved.
The private contractor that will receive the contract will be the one providing cost estimates to the Sheriff. Commissioner Kimball said the county had worked with this contractor for the 2025 Fair and their guards were highly trained, and did a great job. I have a little familiarity with the Fair, and thankfully there are law enforcement officers there, some in plain clothes. In addition there were private security there in plain clothes, but unarmed. It is unclear whether the private security guards at the Courthouse will be armed or unarmed. It is also unclear as to whether they will be able to detain or arrest people. It is clear that they will be able to call 911.
Commissioner Fulmer stated that the private security guards would have at least 40 hours of training. This pales in comparison to the months long training and years of formal education that Deputies and police officers have.
Privatizing Courthouse security is for the Sheriff’s convenience. He said several times that he is understaffed, and that when one of his employees is absent it is difficult to have full coverage. With a contractor he can just call them up and get a “body”.
How likely is it that the people with the right credentials and training are willing to take these jobs, driving over from the Tri-Cities? Why can a company do what the County apparently cannot do, with all of its resources and benefits?
Commissioner Fulmer then moved to approve an “emergency one month contract” to this same private company given the lack of security at the Courthouse, due in part to the Sheriff’s early termination of two part-time guards. This didn’t go anywhere.
When I visited the Courthouse on Tuesday, October 22nd, there was this sign on the metal detector that said “No Security Today”. I wish I had taken a picture of it.
— Kari Isaacson