The TSA's challenge

Workforce, Sept, 2003 by Carsten Henningsen

COMMENTS ON YOUR ARTICLE "Big, Fast and Easily Bungled," by Ken Gordon (August 2003):

I write as one of the subcontractors who worked on the unprecedented, though massive and rushed, hiring for TSA Airport Security screeners. Mr. Gordon misstated some of the circumstances in his article.

First, 2 percent of the number hired originally (1,208 of 55,000) is probably lower than average for any industry that conducts security checks as part of their hiring process. Given the scope of the background check, the length of time it takes the federal government to conduct background checks, and the rush that Congress (i.e., the American Public) demanded, it no wonder that this relatively small percentage were let go once the complete check had been done.

Mr. Gordon fails to note the unsavory results given as reasons for Admiral Loy's letting these 1,208 people go, nor did the article state just how many applicants were eliminated by the vendors during initial screening.

This was an unregulated industry, rife with corruption and shoddy practices. That is why it was targeted by terrorists as a weak spot and that is why the federal government took it over. At one airport to which I was assigned for hiring, less than 50 percent of the existing civilian security staff were even legally able to work in this country,, much less meet the citizenship, education, background and aptitude checks the vendor conducted. The airport security industry, suffered a turnover rate of 400 percent prior to the government taking it over. I believe it is less than 20 percent now. Again, 2 percent of employee termination due to late results in full background checks is not a bad record. I wonder if Mr. Gordon made a comparison with the percentage of folks who are refused military security clearances as a result of background cheeks. What percentage of congressional representatives are eliminated from their positions as a result of unsavory acts? (And they are not even subject to strict scrutiny of background checks--their errors simply bubble up on their own.)

Second, Mr. Gordon states that the vendors were irresponsible for not informing the government of dangers of massive hiring efforts. Untrue. I personally informed my contacts and I know that daily reports were submitted in Washington, D.C., stating the vendors' recommendations to comply with regulations, to improve the process and to correct known or perceived deficiencies. The government reply was unwaveringly that it was time to execute the hiring order as fast as possible in order to meet the mandate that Congress had established. TSA pleaded with Congress to both extend the deadline and adjust hiring requirements. Mr. Gordon could have found this information in any of numerous daily press releases, both from the official press room of the TSA and from AP or other wireless services. These articles exist en masse in the public domain under simple search engines.

Third, TSA knew it "threw money" and "overhired." This was required in an environment that had no superstructure and no regulations in place. To generalize that en masse hiring is inherently bad based on the early rumblings of an infant agency would be akin to stating that amendments to the U.S. Constitution are prima facie evidence that our founding fathers were mere crooks who took irresponsible actions as they set up a new government. We start with the best we can do under existing circumstances, do the job at hand, and make adjustments as we mature based on what was learned and what is changing around us. Armchair quarterbacks always claim they have 20/20 vision, albeit limited to the past instead of the future.

Carsten Henningsen

MBA, SPHR