I attended the Metro Council’s public safety meeting last night. Unfortunately, there were no real answers, quite simply because there were hardly any real questions. As one councilman said to me near the end, “there’re forty wannabe Columbos in there”. Some good questions were asked, but no one felt the need to delve too deep. And too many “non-answers” were accepted without further challenge by the council member asking them. If frustration were to take human form, it would fit snugly within the Metro council chamber. It was as if half of them had heard about the break-in mere minutes before the meeting began.

Ray Barrett, the administrator of the election commission, was present, as well as representatives from Metro general services and information technology service. In all, I felt Councilman Mike Jameson asked the most incisive questions. For instance, interestingly, over the last year, information services was providing the same level of service to the election commission, however the fee they charged doubled. Sadly, over the last year, the fee charged for security was halved. Both general services and information technology services commented that the level of services provided had not changed. In all, that was a bit puzzling.

General services confirmed that it was responsible for maintaining security at the building, but repeatedly declined to be considered responsible for any data, and made the point that real property services was responsible for the initial security design. Before the theft, 24/7 security was only requested during the week by general services (which, I suppose, makes it 24/5 security). It was confirmed that holidays and weekends had abbreviated coverage, and that “24/7″ security only began as of last night, even though the thefts occurred nearly two weeks ago. This only came out after the general services representative slipped - earlier in the meeting she stated there had been 24/7 security since the theft was discovered.

We also know there were internal, election commission security procedures regarding portable data devices, such as laptops. Ray Barrett implied as much in The Tennessean yesterday. Based on what happened, we know for certain those security protocols weren’t followed in the case of the two laptops that were stolen. Much to my amazement, not a single council member inquired as to what those procedures were, and why they were not followed. General services and information technology services explained repeatedly what had been done to remedy the security situation - repeatedly because certain members of the council like to ask the same questions over and over. However, two hours into the meeting, no questions were posed to the election commission regarding its internal fixes, investigations into why the laptops were not secure, or whether anyone was responsible for securing them, even after it was discovered that information technology services provide “best practices guidelines” to Metro departments, but it is the departments themselves who formulate their own policies and procedures.

Plus, commission laptops are stored in at least two places - downtown, and at the election commission’s southeast building. No one inquired at all as to the security situation at southeast, which is lighter staffed and more isolated. Of course, no one meaningfully inquired about any of the security policies of the election commission itself, much less the auxiliary locations.

In a word, unbelievable.

You can find a summary of the meeting by WSMV here