Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Atlantic County commissioners vote to request wand/metal-detector screening and audit of security after employee safety complaints
Summary
Following employee and union public comments describing threats and aggressive behavior at the county office building, commissioners voted to ask administration to provide wands/metal-detector accessories, staffing sufficient for screening, and an audit of the current security-service contract.
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County employees and union representatives raised repeated concerns about safety and insufficient screening at the Atlantic County office building, telling commissioners that customers have threatened staff and that guards sometimes fail to perform expected screening duties.
Several employees, including union leaders, said they regularly encounter people carrying luggage and bags, some of whom show signs of severe stress or threatening behavior. Speakers asked for metal detectors or at least wand screening so staff feel protected when working with vulnerable and sometimes agitated clients.
Commissioner response and motion: Commissioners asked administration to evaluate options. A motion was made, seconded and carried by roll call to request the county provide wands or metal‑detector accessories, the appropriate number of security staff to operate them (or the equivalent), and an audit of the current security services contract to ensure performance and accountability. Commissioners also asked administration to report back on feasibility and cost and to consider additional guard staffing and training.
Outcome and next steps: The motion passed on roll call (recorded as a majority affirmative vote; no nays were recorded in the public roll-call sequence). County administration acknowledged the concerns and said it will assess the cost and logistics of screening and staffing options and will review the security contractor's performance as requested.
Provenance: Employee testimony and motion (topic intro SEG 3256, topic finish SEG 3831).

