THE FACILITY DOCTORS
Question: at the table when it comes to policies, procedures, and actions associ- ated with an event/facility. But having too many people involved can cause distraction and possible battles for power/control. Who are the and time constraints on every facility, how can a facility maintain a Submitted By: Larry Perkins, CFE, CPP, CMP; Vice Pres- ident of Guest Relations / Assistant GM of PNC Arena
Response By: I recently defended a large university in a case brought by an injured fan. The fan was injured when he jumped over a wall, rushing the beat a nationally-ranked rival. The issue that arose pertained to who only decision made was to avoid creating bottlenecks where people The decision to open the gates was made by the university’s athlet- safety decision. Their argument was that even though the AD was in the command center with the facility manager, police, security, EMTs, and others, he was not trained in facility safety or security, and there- a room with all necessary key personnel, and if there was any issue regarding his decision, the others in the room would have raised any such concerns. So, in fact, they supported and endorsed his decision. This example shows the importance of having the right people in the room to make the best possible decisions with the information and resources available. Every facility has a variety of stakeholders which may include fans,
- partment, police department, local agencies, state agencies, federal agencies, and numerous other individuals who want to have a say. The concern is that if a facility is trying to give everyone a voice, it would - agement team must identify the most critical individuals who should be involved in planning for and executing a safe event. No two facilities addition, the appropriate individuals may vary for a particular event. A university might need to address town and gown issues so local com- munity leaders might be key personnel during the planning process, always who should be at the table. Access to resources may vary based on ownership and/or manage-
ment of the venue, but regardless of who owns or operates a facility, in these trying security times, venues need resources and assistance. For example, venues need security hardening elements such as variable public roadways surrounding a building, cooperation by the Depart- ment of Transportation, whereby they installed overhead VM signs
Co-Editors: Dr. Kimberly Mahoney & Prof. Gil Fried
these resources might be provided by government agencies such as a county’s Emergency Management Division or even National Guard units. While some resources are from grant funds, not designated for the private sector, if a strong relationship exists between the venue and outside agencies, sometimes grant funds or information can be ap- plied, even to a private facility. This example demonstrates the impor- government entities. They need to be at the table. Every facility management team needs to examine all possible options for assistance. The popular term “a team of rivals” is very apropos in this instance. For example, management and union can sometimes be at odds with one another, but they need to be on the same page when it comes to major decisions for the venue. At some venues, there could be close to 30 unions present, and in an economy where labor costs are soaring, without long-range planning, manage- ment could be caught with negative income when certain labor rela- concerns should be voiced during the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiation process. For instance, the CBA might call for pay- Such an occurrence might arise if an event needs to be cancelled due to inclement weather. Unions and employees need to be at the table. Management might want to consider their state’s information and analysis centers as well. Some states might call this unit the “Informa- - work with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in the - ery season along with safety agencies, league or conference represen- tatives, and other key stakeholders. These same stakeholders should be engaged throughout a season whenever there are any suspicious persons, phone calls, e-mails, etc., so everyone has the same knowledge and information. This allows everyone to run the information through their respective analysis systems. Sharing such information may alert a facility manager to “chatter” or other concerns critical for event safety and which might not be shared if the stakeholders were not on the same page. Thus, these entities need to be at the table. It is impossible to list everyone that should be at the table, as every
- ical voices present. It may be easier with groups that combine various stakeholders into one voice, but that is not always available. The key is to keep the table open for the right people to be heard and then be guests. FM
Kim Mahoney, Ph.D., is assistant professor in the college of business sport manage- ment department, and Gil Fried, J.D., is professor – chair in the college of business sport management department both at the University of New Haven.
IAVM 39
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
