Building support for security legislation.

In 1995, the Governor of Oregon signed S.B. 60, a bill that establishes minimum training standards and licensing procedures for security professionals. The legislation was written by a group of private security practitioners whose main goal was to standardize regulations statewide. Prior to the legislation, there were no state training or certification requirements. Some municipalities regulated security, but the regulations were not standardized. The state's largest city, Portland, issued regulations only for armed security officers.

Industry representatives had made several attempts at legislation over the past twenty years but prior to S.B. 60 could not gamer the support necessary to pass the provisions. Those involved in getting S.B. 60 approved attribute their success to collaboration with law enforcement, private industry, and state agencies. Their story may serve as a guide for security professionals in other states who would like to see minimum standards required by law.

OPSC. One of the most critical partnerships was that established between contract and proprietary security professionals who formed the Oregon Private Security Council (OPSC). The group, which began its work in 1993, met monthly to agree on goals, set priorities, and work out the logistics of potential legislation. Monthly meetings provided a forum for the necessary discussions and an opportunity to find common ground amid conflicting expectations and ideas. Existing private security groups such as ASIS chapters, retail loss prevention groups, and hospital security groups played crucial roles by having representatives attend meetings and provide information on the industry.

OPSC participants agreed on three primary goals: promoting professionalism of the private security industry; pushing for legislation that would require licensing private security companies and certifying private security officers; and forming active partnerships with law enforcement.

Although national legislation to standardize training and certification of private security officers has not passed, OPSC used the language in the federal bill proposed by Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-CA) - including the training requirements and background checks - as the framework for Oregon's legislation, although modifications were made to meet state needs.

OPSC also drew some provisions from the successful legislative models established in the neighboring states of California and Washington. As reflected in the California law, OPSC views private security as a profession such as the practice of law or accounting. Therefore, security practitioners must meet certain criteria to be certified in their profession. As in Washington, the training of private security officers is decentralized. A private security officer will be able to receive training that meets the state requirements from many sources, including community colleges, private trainers, or employers.

Law enforcement. Other partnerships were formed with law enforcement groups and state agencies. OPSC worked closely with the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police (OACP), the Oregon State Sheriffs Association (OSSA), and other key federal, state, and local law enforcement groups. These groups met monthly with OPSC to discuss common goals.

OPSC hosted the first annual executive training session in January 1994 with an attendance of approximately 200 public law enforcement representatives, public safety executives, and private security managers. Topics for the statewide event included public/private partnerships and media relations. These topics were chosen because they were of interest to all. Such training was designed to promote the professionalism of the security industry and to inform attendees about the benefits of standards legislation.

The sessions were followed by a social hour with incentives for participants to stay and meet one another. For example, OPSC provided refreshments, gave away prizes, and hosted security vendor exhibits. The annual training sessions and associated social hours became an excellent forum for reporting on the group's progress and taking input from those professionals who could not be actively involved in the legislation. Two subsequent sessions, the most recent in January 1996, have been held with equal success.

OPSC used the law enforcement groups, who had representatives in every community in the state, to circulate information about the pending legislation and OPSC training seminars. Law enforcement groups also helped establish a mailing list for future events.

The law enforcement partnership helped in another way. OACP, known in Oregon for a well-defined legislative agenda and a strong lobby, sponsored the OPSC bill in the Senate. OACP's president, Chief Ken Wright of Woodburn, Oregon, provided strong leadership and support as a spokesman. The group's lobbyist, Larry Campbell, a former state Speaker of the House, convinced lawmakers to place the bill in the right committee at the right time during the shortest legislative session in years. With the support of OACP, the bill moved smoothly through both houses with enough votes to make Governor John Kitzhaber's signature a formality.

The law enforcement partnership was also critical in connecting OPSC with its larger support group - security professionals throughout the state. The group was writing legislation for the security industry but did not have statistics on either the number of private security officers or the types of security providers working in the state. Law enforcement officials had this information because they participate in licensing private security officers in cities that require regulation.

State agencies. OPSC also consulted with the agencies responsible for performing the services required by the legislation, such as training, fingerprinting, and background checks. Lt. Cliff Daimler of the Oregon State Police Identification Bureau participated in the project. His agency provides the fingerprinting and background checks for persons in other professions in the state, including teachers, childcare workers, and realtors. To simplify the bill, OPSC used the model established by these other professions.

The final partnership was with the Board of Public Safety Standards and Training. This agency will administer company licensing and private security officer certification. The twenty-one-member board has been expanded to include two private security representatives. Advisory committees have also been added, including a nine-member Private Security Advisory Committee (PSAC). PSAC will oversee the new law and advise the board on private security matters.

Enactment. The law will be effective January 1, 1997, but discussions of the legislation have already begun among security professionals. While most are preparing for the law's enactment, some are concerned that those employing security officers may have increased liability for employees who lose their certification.

The law requires that certification fees pay the cost of the program. Though a price has not been set, state officials have indicated that it will be similar to that in surrounding states with certification requirements, such as Washington. The cost can be borne by the employer or the individual. The security officer owns the certification, however, and can obtain it on his or her own or through a company.

Private security professionals in Oregon felt strongly that their industry would benefit from regulatory support. By forming critical partnerships with involved parties and learning from federal and state legislative attempts, OPSC was able to convince lawmakers that security legislation would also be good for Oregon.

Jo Ann Langford, CPP, is general manager of RAMS Specialized Security Service, Inc. She serves as an ASIS Region I assistant vice president and currently sits on the Private Security Advisory Committee to the Oregon Board of Public Safety