Is the policy of two people entering the vault at all times obsolete?

Not in my world. It maintains dual control. I would hate to be an employee who was once in the vault alone before a "mysterious disappearance". I want a witness.

------------------
Al Miller, CRCM
Fremont Bank (CA)
(510) 790-5825
(510) 505-5211 FAX

Opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily shared by my employer.

Amy:

No existing dual control should be made obsolete without a careful review of what that control was designed to accomplish. The primary purpose for implementing any dual control is to deter and reduce -- not eliminate -- the possibility of theft or other loss. The secondary purpose is to provide evidence if a theft or other loss occurs.

Traditional vault dual control policies rely upon the presence of two (2) employees, with the intent of having one employee witness the other's actions. This is one of those areas within the institution that you should consider a "silent" and more reliable witness -- video cameras.

Consider placing two (2) video cameras in your vault -- one on the wall opposite the other, near the ceiling. These cameras should cover the full 360 degrees of visability within the vault and record all activity. This "silent" witness is much more accurate and reliable than a human witness.

This technique may also be used in some other areas where dual controls are in place, to eliminate the need for a second employee, including:
- Shipping, delivery and receiving areas; and
- ATM and night deposit reconciliation areas.

You might consider adding this technique, while keeping the second employee, to the:
- Wire transfer room;
- Area where incoming mail is opened and distributed;
- Safety deposit area when you forcibly enter a box and have to inventory the contents without the presence of the box holder; and
- Safety deposit box area when you assist law enforcement personnel in serving a search warrant.

------------------
Dana Turner
Security Education Systems
danaturner@bankersonline.com
830-535-6500

At our main branch cameras are installed in our vault area as the building is only two years old. However, we have nine other branches and the majority of them are quite small. I'm not sure that it would make sense to install cameras at each of these locations. On the other hand the managers of these branches claim it is close to impossible to comply with our vault entry policy. I am not willing to budge on this one. Therefore, I need to find a way make it feasable and a way to enforce it.

Amy:

What a great opportunity to show the bank just one of the positive contributions that the Security Department can make to the bank's bottom line!

Calculate the number of hours that a "witness employee" must be present in each branch each business day -- times 221 business days annually (273 days if you're open Saturdays). Take this total and multiply it by nine (9) branches to arrive at the total number of employee hours that are spent at this task. Then multiply the number of hours spent times the appropriate employee classification's hourly pay (including benefits) to arrive at the total projected, annual cost. Then project this figure out ten (10) years.

Use an average price for an appropriate camera of $400 and the average camera lasts for ten (10) years. Multiply this cost times eighteen (18) cameras and add a one-time-only installation fee of $50 per camera. Then use a banker's financial magic and compare the cost savings achieved by using a "silent witness".

Branch managers often view the Security Department as adversaries. Become an ally instead, and use techniques such as this one to make the Security Department a profit center that enhances everyone's profitability. And please consider posting your results on BOL when you're done.

------------------
Dana Turner
Security Education Systems
danaturner@bankersonline.com
830-535-6500

Is a camera a safe substitue for a live witness? In other words, would it keep someone as honest?

In some respects a camera is better. It doesn't ask for overtime, it doesn't fudge on the rules and it is always looking. This assumes that the camera is always looking in the right place however and can see everything is should. Multiple camers may be needed. Other concerns are that you won't look a tape until you need to. Will it still be there when you realize you need it?

Each has a plus and a minus. I've seen inconclusive tapes and I've seen employees leave the vault to get a phone call, negating the dual control requirements.

Neither system will ever be perfect. People were not perfect when I was doing physical security at a missle site in the Army and adequate camera coverage and procedures may be difficult to implement. But difficult is not impossible.

------------------
Andy Zavoina
Opinions stated are not necessarily that of my employer.

Amy:

Unless a videotape has been altered, the camera makes for a more believable, credible and irrefutable witness than a human does. As people, we are all capable of practicing "selective" memory. In other words, our memories are influenced by the time, place and circumstances. The camera has absolute memory in that it records exactly what it sees and hears. People often lie -- cameras don't unless some trick has been played upon it.

I suggest that you contact your bank's legal counsel for his/her opinion regarding a camera's worth as a witness.

------------------
Dana Turner
Security Education Systems
danaturner@bankersonline.com
830-535-6500

Thanks so much!