Meetinghouse security

Discussions around the setup, operation, replacement, and disposal of clerk computers, not to include using MLS
falisrm-p40
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Meetinghouse security

Postby falisrm-p40 » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:29 pm

A lot of meetinghouses are getting vandelized and i think its only going to get worse. Since the church doesn't have insurance on the meetinghouses, this can quickly become expensive. What are some things we can do to keep the property protected? We just have someone stop by every night to check on the building. but that doesn't prevent anything. Is the church still planning to install security systems in each building?

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14693
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:49 pm

falisrm wrote:A lot of meetinghouses are getting vandelized and i think its only going to get worse. Since the church doesn't have insurance on the meetinghouses, this can quickly become expensive.


The cost of insurance would be significantly more than the cost of any repairs and replacements -- that's why the Church chooses to self-insure. I'm certainly not saying that repairs are not expensive; certainly they can be, and we should all be doing all that we can to keep those costs down. But the lack of insurance really isn't an issue -- that's a choice the Church has made to save money.

falisrm wrote:What are some things we can do to keep the property protected? We just have someone stop by every night to check on the building. but that doesn't prevent anything.


This is a good question. Local leaders should constantly be thinking about what they can do to reduce the risk of vandalism, theft, and other security problems. Checking the building does indeed prevent some things, as the building may not be locked properly without consistent building checks, and some mischief certainly occurs only because a building is left unlocked.

There are all sorts of standard things that can be done to improve security. I'll list a few that come to mind from experience in our stake:

  • Keep an updated key inventory -- know where all keys are, and promptly disable any lost keys
  • Check the building at least every night to make sure it is locked up
  • In your check, don't neglect windows and any other ways of entering the building besides just doors
  • Don't be too predictable in your routine of checking
  • For events on non-Sundays (for example a baptism on a Saturday morning), make sure that someone is specifically assigned to lock the building after the event so that the building is not open for many hours until the nightly check
  • Realize that much of the damage comes from members; encourage families to foster an attitude of reverence for these dedicated buildings.

falisrm wrote:Is the church still planning to install security systems in each building?


I hadn't heard of any such plans. The way you phrased this, it sounds like you have some information that security systems are or were being planned. What is your source?

Given the way Church buildings are used, I think the number of false alarms would be very high in proportion to the small number of incidents a security system might prevent. I would think that security systems might be installed in a few selected areas where the benefit would be sufficient to offset the cost and hassle, but I doubt it would ever make sense Church-wide.

falisrm-p40
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

The policy the church has about self insurance is genious

Postby falisrm-p40 » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:32 pm

The church saves untold millions by not being insured and its a great policy. I just read it somewhere on the internet or a news article maybe that they plan to install security cameras in buildings but that was months and months ago.

When you read the stories of vandelism in buildings, its really sad. One ward decided to camp out and watch for the perpetraders and they managed to catch them in the act. In one way thats dangerouos but kudos to them.

Our new stake center got $100,000 in damage when it opened. They were never caught.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20767
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:25 pm

I would imagine that the church will implement policy "as needed" since I doubt it there's any "one-size-fits-all" solution to security. A lot of it depends on what kind of problems each unit is experiencing.

RossEvans
Senior Member
Posts: 1346
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:52 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby RossEvans » Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:13 pm

Security cameras in parking lots might be helpful. At our stake center, after a series of car break-ins on Sundays, the wards who meet there now assign a pair of HP or EQ members to patrol the parking areas during meetings..

User avatar
Mikerowaved
Community Moderators
Posts: 3132
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:56 am
Location: Layton, UT

Postby Mikerowaved » Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:55 am

Folks, I would be cautious discussing in a public forum what security measures the Church may or may not have in place for its meeting houses. Since each area is different, I would suggest discussing specific security related concerns with your local leadership and not use this forum.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

falisrm-p40
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:02 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Your right

Postby falisrm-p40 » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:01 am

Your right, is there anyway to delete this thread?

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14693
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:24 am

falisrm wrote:You're right, is there anyway to delete this thread?


It is possible to delete a thread, but I don't think we have crossed a line here. We may have been getting close, and Mikerowaved's warning is appropriate, but I don't think a discussion of general security principles is a problem. Discussing specific technology measures is problematic, particularly if it can be traced to a specific location.

In any case, as has been mentioned, security is going to be handled differently at different locations, so as long as we avoid specifics, I don't see how a general discussion gives any help to potential criminals, even if they do happen to read this thread.

If there is a consensus that the thread should be deleted, I will be happy to do so.

User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3241
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

Postby mkmurray » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:28 am

Alan_Brown wrote:It is possible to delete a thread, but I don't think we have crossed a line here. We may have been getting close, and Mikerowaved's warning is appropriate, but I don't think a discussion of general security principles is a problem. Discussing specific technology measures is problematic, particularly if it can be traced to a specific location.

In any case, as has been mentioned, security is going to be handled differently at different locations, so as long as we avoid specifics, I don't see how a general discussion gives any help to potential criminals, even if they do happen to read this thread.

If there is a consensus that the thread should be deleted, I will be happy to do so.

I agree the thread should be left up. It is good for others with the same curiosity of falisrm to know this information should they come upon this thread.


Return to “Clerk Computers”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest