International Foundation for Cultural Property Protection

By Kevin Rawlinson

Two thousand visitors and staff were evacuated from the Science Museum in London after a "chemical incident" yesterday. Three people were taken to hospital following what was believed to be a spillage in the basement. 

A total of 22 people, all staff or contractors, were treated. Some complained of irritated eyes and sore throats, while others said they were suffering from sore chests. It is thought that some of those affected came into contact with an unknown substance before rubbing their eyes.

Emergency services were called after an alarm sounded at 11.30am. Specialist hazardous substance ambulance teams and firefighters in protective clothing were called to the South Kensington attraction to treat people and to try to identify the source of the irritation.

A London Ambulance Service spokesman confirmed they were called to reports of a chemical leak in the Science Museum at around 11:30am. "We sent four ambulance crews, five Hazardous Area Response Teams and a duty officer. Our staff treated 15 men and seven women," he said. "Three of the patients, two men and one woman were taken to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital with chest tightness and the rest of the patients were treated at the scene for eye irritation and sore throats." It is not believed their conditions were serious.

A total of 35 firefighters from London Fire Brigade attended. A team called to the scene failed to identify the chemical involved. However, police sources last night said they believed it was a household cleaning fluid, kept at the scene. A museum spokesman confirmed that the basement – where the spillage happened – contained galleries and staff rooms but was unable to say in which it had taken place.

Firefighters in protective clothing remained at the scene carrying out investigations until around 4pm yesterday. A London Fire Brigade spokesman said he was unsure if their failure to identify the substance was due to the museum's ventilation systems.

He said: "The readings do not suggest that any residue is still present. We took samples in the area and used them against charts to find out if they match any known chemicals. However, in this case, there was not enough residue left behind."

A cordon around the area was removed late yesterday afternoon and a museum spokesman said last night that he expected the attraction, which is popular with tourists and children, to reopen today.  

A Science Museum spokesman said: "The safety of our visitors is paramount and we have worked closely with London Fire Brigade to assess the situation prior to making the decision to reopen. We are grateful to the London Fire Brigade, the Metropolitan Police and the London Ambulance Service for their assistance throughout this incident."

However, staff said yesterday that they had been given little information on what to do and had just been left standing. "An alarm went off at around 11.30 this morning and we were told to get out," one employee, who did not want to be named, said late yesterday afternoon. She added: "We weren't given any information; we just had to leave our belongings and go outside."

A museum spokesman said he did not know what instructions, if any, staff had been given. The museum's director, Prof Chris Rapley, refused to be interviewed about the incident.

Scotland Yard said the incident was not being treated as suspicious and a spokesman for the museum said it would reopen today as normal. 

By: Dave F. Katzenmeyer, CPP

Genesis Background Screening Services

WARNING: Failure to conduct background screening on your employees may lead to serious legal risks and lower customer retention.

And, not screening could lead to failure itself, consider this:

A national company was sued for negligent hiring and entrustment of an intoxicated security guard.  The guard had an on duty traffic accident in a company car killing him and another motorist.  The employer settled for $ 2.5 million out of court – Bulter vs Hertz Corp.

A service company employee with a criminal record sexually assaulted a child resulting in $ 1.75 million awarded for negligent hiring and retention – Doe vs MCLO

A furniture company was found liable for $ 2.5 million for negligent hiring and retention.  Their deliveryman attacked a customer in her home – Tallahassee Furniture Co., Inc. vs Harrison

A customer detained by a security guard and injured while being restrained was awarded $ 10 million in damages in a suit against the store, claiming negligent hiring – Porter vs Proffitts

The list goes on and on and increases daily.

Out-of-court settlements and lawsuits for negligent hiring and retention, in California, due to workplace violence, average over $ 500,000.00; jury verdicts in these cases average about $ 3 million and employers in California lose about sixty (60) percent of negligent hiring cases - Insurance Information Network of California and The Reish & Luftman Practical Guide to Employment Law

Understand this: Your insurance policy may not completely cover you in a negligent hiring lawsuit. If sued above and beyond the limits of your coverage, you may very well find yourself on your own when it comes to the total cost of your defense, court fees, and payment of settlement(s).

If this were to happen to you, what would it do to your company? What would it do to you personally?  Are you risking the loss of your assets, perhaps even your livelihood?

Mistakes to Avoid

The first step in risk mitigation is avoiding the temptation of “we can get away without this expense”.  The seduction of the “cheapest cost” or “FREE” must be resisted as well.

Many employers use web-based access to criminal databases to screen applicants.  There is a general misconception about centralized nationwide criminal records databases that report from every jurisdiction in the U.S.  No such comprehensive resource exists on line, in fact, there are 3,086 counties in the U.S. and they do not all report the same.  These “do-it-yourself” database searches may cover some jurisdictions, but they are very weak in California, and are in general incomplete.  It is likely that they will provide poor or no information and will contribute very little to a defense in a negligent hiring lawsuit.

U.S. Senator Herb Kohl WI, Chairman of special committees supporting employee screening has said, “The current system of state database background checks is haphazard, inconsistent and full of gaping holes”.  The standard is clearly set.  The courts place expectations of proper and diligent background screening upon the employers.  Courts have historically upheld this theory and will continue to do so.

Over my 30 years of work in the security industry, I often witnessed the incorrect assumption that the “Guard Card” and “Department of Justice” (D.O.J.) are a sufficient background check.  This is incorrect.  One only needs to go to the D.O.J. website and read the governments disclaimers.  “The Department does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of the information contained in state websites regarding specific offenders or with respect to the omission of information about other offenders who are the subject of any search using this website…..”

I spoke with Leo Austin, President of guard-systems, Inc., and a long time Calsaga member, about this practice.  Leo offers an excellent example of why you cannot rely solely on the D.O.J. and state-issued guard cards when hiring.  “Recently, two applicants came into our office to apply. Each had a guard card issued from California; we followed our policy of background checking all applicants and found that both of these individuals had served time for murder, one in Ohio, one in Texas.  Thanks to our policy of diligence and to a good background vendor, we didn’t hire these applicants”. 

Would you have hired them?  Are you confident of your current methods?  Think about it; D.O.J. and the State are NOT obligated to perform background checks for you.  They are not under contract with you to act or discharge a duty on your behalf, they offer no warranty or guarantee to you, and they will not be a part of your defense.

Ready for good news?

The proper safe hiring program will increase your overall chances for success in the security industry.  Employment screening will:

• Increase safety of your employees and clients
• Reduce guard related problems which often result in loss of goodwill and cause an increase in management hours.
• Protect you and your company from liability and lawsuits.
• Protect your company’s reputation.
• Set you apart from your competition and help you win business by demonstrating professionalism with your business practices.
• Reduce turn-over, training costs and overtime.  Security experts estimate to get a new officer on post requires the typical Private Patrol Operator (PPO) to spend between $ 260.00 to $ 600.00 or more per employee.  A figure that takes into consideration hard costs only.  Goodwill lost, hiring tasks and management time are not part of this equation.  A company with 50 guards, by improving hiring practices and reducing turn-over by just 10 percent per year, could save from $ 1,100.00 to $ 10,000.00 annually. A range that will more than likely pay for professional background screening services, plus put money back onto your bottom-line in more ways than one.

Pros & Cons of In-House or Out-Sourcing Background Screening

There are tasks an employer can do in-house like contacting previous employers and verifying licenses, however, some employers find it more efficient to out-source the more technical aspects of screening even if they have sufficient staffing to do it themselves.  Here are some points to consider:

• If we out-source, can we make better use of our time in other areas and if so, will it make us a better, more profitable company?
• Do we have the required expertise to perform backgrounds ourselves?
• What is most cost effective?
• How will we best manage the out-sourcing process in terms of quality performance?
• What are the legal advantages to out-sourcing?

A professional background screening company can help you answer these questions and will assist you in determining your R.O.I. (return on investment).  The right screening partner should guide you in determining Best Practices for your industry; they should add value to your processes and be a source of knowledge and information in your hiring practices.

To find your right professional background screening company, look for a full service firm that can demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of your industry.  They should carry professional liability insurance, have appropriate licensing and produce reports that are legally compliant with the FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act).  They should also be a member of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners.

Dave has 29-plus years of experience owning and running two successful security companies.  He is now president and owner of GENESIS Background Screening Services, a state licensed private investigative company recognized under United States Federal Laws as a Consumer Reporting Agency, which helps clients make the best possible decisions about hiring people by conducting thorough background checks and pre-employment testing.  For information visit www.gbsspro.com or call 866- 944-0041.

In this month’s SecurTest News, Steve Millwee, CPP, the leading expert on background checks, provides guidance on the recent EEOC lawsuits against employers’ discrimination of Hispanic and African American males based on criminal conviction records. What? Does this send an alarming message that you must hire ex-cons, despite their criminal conviction records?  What is the hiring criteria you should follow to avoiding being sued by the government?  How is SecurTest leading the way to protect you?  All of these questions, and more are included in the April edition of SecurTest News!

Make sure to view our powerful informational video – this month’s exclusive Executive Memo – in which Mr. Millwee explains how your organization can make safe hiring decisions while still following the guidelines set forth by the EEOC and FCRA.  The link to the newsletter can be found at www.securtest.com/news/.

Never hesitate to call our team of certified background screeners, security and HR experts, or Steve to answer any question or insure that your background screening program is up-to-date and priced to meet your budget and needs.

SecurTest, Inc.
1720 Epps Bridge Parkway
Suite 108-380
Athens, GA 30606
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
URL: www.securtest.com
Phone: (800) 445-8001
Fax: (815) 550-8821

By Stephen Kurkjian, Globe Correspondent  |  April 4, 2010 

The FBI was on the trail of recovering the principal masterpieces stolen from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum from a criminal gang in Corsica two years ago only to have its efforts dashed, in part because of bureaucratic infighting among federal agents and supervisors.

That is the conclusion of a nonfiction book written by a now-retired FBI special agent who posed undercover in 2006 and 2007 as a wealthy art collector interested in purchasing several of the paintings through two Frenchmen who had alleged ties to the Corsican mobsters. The French intermediaries said they could deliver the stolen Vermeer, valued at more than $100 million, and at least one of the two large Rembrandts that were taken. They were among the 13 pieces, now valued at $500 million, stolen in what is considered the largest art theft in history.

As detailed in his soon-to-be released book, “Priceless: How I Went Undercover to Rescue the World’s Stolen Treasures,’’ Robert K.Wittmansays he believed from French wiretaps and his covert dealings with the two French intermediaries that the Corsican mob did have control of the stolen artwork. A special agent for 20 years, Wittman established the FBI’s Art Theft unit and is credited with recoveries of hundreds of millions of dollars of art and antiquities during his career, many of which he recounts in his book, along with his experiences on the Gardner case.

If true, the disclosures provide the first real clues as to what happened to the 11 paintings and drawings, plus an ancient Chinese vase and a finial, stolen out of the Gardner Museum on March 18, 1990.

Wittman, who retired from the FBI and now works as a private security consultant, could not be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for his publisher, Crown Publishers in New York, said he would not be giving interviews until the book goes on sale in June. As recently as a month ago, FBI agents who have spent the last 20 years investigating the thefts were quoted as saying that they have never received “proof of life’’ evidence from any of the tipsters that they had possession or access to the stolen goods.

The FBI, according to officials, is reviewing Wittman’s manuscript for possible disclosure of secrets that could be damaging to ongoing investigations or national security. Special Agent Gail A.Marcinkiewicz, spokeswoman for the Boston office of the FBI, declined to respond to questions on the substance of the Corsican investigation — tagged Operation Masterpiece by the FBI — or Wittman’s criticisms of the FBI’s overall handling of the inquiry. Instead, in a statement Friday, she said: “Per DOJ [ Department of Justice] policy, the FBI does not comment on any ongoing, pending investigations. The FBI remains dedicated and committed to this investigation with the ultimate goal being the recovery and return of the stolen artwork to the Gardner Museum.’’

Until now, the FBI has attributed that failure to the perpetrators’continued fear of prosecution, despite repeated pledges by federal authorities that they would not be charged if they returned the stolen items in good condition. They would also be eligible to collect the $5 million reward being offered by the museum for the return of the paintings and other art pieces.

However, Wittman contends that the lead he worked on beginning in late2006 — which he describes as the first credible tip received by the FBI — was sabotaged by the reluctance of FBI officials to overrule the FBI supervisory agent on the Gardner investigation who refused to allow Wittman to make his own decisions on the Corsican case.

Instead, the supervisor, who is only identified in the book as “Fred,’’ micromanaged Wittman’s interactions with the two French intermediaries even though he was unfamiliar with overseeing an undercover operation. At one point, Wittman writes, Fred tried to get Wittman thrown off the case by sending an official memorandum to FBI chiefs in Washington questioning whether Wittman was trying to delay  completing the investigation until retiring so he could win the $5 million reward as a private citizen.

In addition, Wittman writes, Fred — who had never before traveled to a foreign country on official business — was quick to offend his counterparts in French law enforcement on the investigation, seeking to assert the FBI’s control of the case even though many of the dealings were to take place inside France.

Despite his pleas, Wittman writes, FBI officials refused to wrest control of the investigation from Fred because of the historic reluctance of those at FBI headquarters to overrule the decisions of the agency’s local supervisors. French authorities also weakened the thrust of the investigation by mandating that a French intelligence officer work undercover with Wittman and by refusing at one key point to allow one of the two intermediaries to enter France for a meeting because he was a fugitive wanted in France on another crime. 

“Bureaucracies and turf fighting on both sides of the Atlantic had destroyed the best chance in a decade to rescue the Gardner  paintings,’’ Wittman writes. “We’dblown an opportunity to infiltrate a major art crime ring in France, a loose network of mobsters holding as many as 70 stolen masterpieces.’’

Despite his criticisms of the investigation, the key question that emerges from Wittman’s book is whether the lead was a legitimate one.Did the French intermediaries — a fugitive accountant named Laurenz Cogniat and his associate, identified only as Sunny — have real ties with Corsican mobsters and did those mobsters have control of the paintings? Or was the pair just trying to pull a scam on Wittman, who had told them that he was able to put up millions to buy theGardner paintings?

Wittman says he believed he was on track to recover the Gardner paintings after French police told him that they had spotted Sunny  meeting with Corsican mobsters in Marseilles and Sunny had been heard on wiretaps speaking of “frames for Bob.’’ Wittman’s undercover name was Bob Clay.

But while the three met repeatedly over a two-year period in France, Spain, and in the United States, Wittman had trouble focusing the intermediaries’ attentionon closing the deal for the Gardner paintings. Wittman dropped out of the case in early 2008 when Sunny approached him to see whether he was interested in buying four paintings that had just been stolen from a museum in Nice. Wittman turned the lead over to another FBI undercover agent. Sunny was subsequently arrested in the deal, ending Wittman’s hopes of using him as a conduit for recovering the Gardner paintings.

Wittman ends his book recounting a wistful conversation he had with Pierre Tabel, then the chief of France’s National Art Crime Squad, about their efforts over the previous two years to recover the Gardner paintings.

“Pierre,’’ Wittman asks him, “do you think we had a chance? For the paintings?’’

“Absolutement,’’ Tabel responded. “We have a good idea who has them. We know to whom Sunny was speaking. But now that we arrest Sunnny… the case is gone. We will not have this chance again for many years.’’

Stephen Kurkjian can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Note:  Bob Wittman will be a keynote presenter at the IFCPP Annual Conference, speaking on Tuesday, August 24, followed by a book signing and "meet the author."