Reposted from Mutual Art

After a painting believed to be a rediscovered Michelangelo was stolen from a Belgian church just days before it was due to be authenticated, we take a look at some of the most significant artworks whose whereabouts are still a mystery.

A painting believed to be a newly discovered Michelangelo was last week stolen from the church of St Ludgerus in Zele, Belgium. The 16th century depiction of the holy family was just days away from undergoing authentication to decide whether or not it was the work of the Renaissance master.

The church pastor called in experts after he noticed similarities between the painting’s composition and some extant sketches. There was much excitement at the possibility that this was Michelangelo’s lost Madonna del Silenzio.

But the painting now has the dubious honor of being numbered among the world’s lost or stolen masterpieces. It’s an illustrious list full of big names and hundreds-of-millions of dollars in estimated value. Here are a few choice examples of paintings which have gone AWOL, and the stories behind their disappearance.

La Mesa Herida (1940), Frida Kahlo

Despite being the largest and heaviest of Kahlo’s paintings (it’s painted on wood panel rather than canvas), La Mesa Herida (The Wounded Table) was stolen after a blockbuster exhibition of work by Mexican artists in Warsaw in 1955, and hasn’t been seen since.

The piece went missing somewhere between Poland and Moscow as the popular exhibition made its way towards Russia as part of its global tour. Diego Rivera, the mural painter and Kahlo’s former husband, had specially requested that this painting be included to represent Kahlo’s work in the year of her death (1954).

In May of 2018, new archival evidence prompted investigator Raúl Cano Monroy to renew efforts to find the painting, now valued at around $20 million. He estimates he will find it in around five years, but for now it remains lost.

Storm on the Sea of Galilee (1633), Rembrandt van Rijn

One of the most significant works stolen in the infamous Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum heist was this extraordinary Rembrandt depicting Christ calming a storm over the sea of Galilee. It’s the only seascape that the Dutch master ever painted.

On the 18th of May 1990, in the early morning, two men disguised as police officers responding to a call were admitted to the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, Boston. They tied up the guards who had allowed them to enter, and set about stealing around $500 million worth of paintings and artefacts. It’s not just the biggest art heist in history, it’s the single biggest theft of private property ever. Even the efforts of the FBI have not led to a single arrest in the 28 years since.

The Concert (1664), Johannes Vermeer

For an artist like Vermeer, whose enormous reputation relies on a curiously small number of extant paintings (only 34 are known, including The Concert), a missing work is a big deal. This painting was another which was stolen by the Isabella Stewart Gardner thieves.

As in the case of The Storm Over Galilee, an empty frame has been left in place of The Concert on the museum's walls, a poignant reminder of its absence.

View of Auvers-sur-Oise (undated), Cézanne

As the fireworks over Oxford began on the evening of December 31st 1999, heralding in the new Millennium, a lone thief climbed up construction-scaffolding surrounding one of the University’s libraries. They proceeded to hop across to the rooftop of the Ashmolean, the world’s oldest museum, break through a skylight, and abseil into the building.

They set off a smoke-bomb, obscuring the CCTV cameras and initiating a callout to the fire-department, meaning security guards had to wait for the emergency response. By the time the fire brigade arrived, the thief had swiped Cézanne’s View of Auvers-sur-Oise, climbed back up through the skylight, and disappeared over the rooftops and down into the crowds of New Year’s revelers.

To this day, the whereabouts of the painting (valued at $10 million), and the identity of the thief, remain a mystery.

Poppy Flowers (1887), Vincent van Gogh

This complex, tenebrous still-life was painted by Van Gogh only three years before his death by suicide. As such, it’s an incredibly valuable piece of art history, as well as being eye-wateringly expensive. The most recent estimate sets its worth at around $50 million.

It was first stolen from the Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil Museum in Cairo in 1977, and was recovered by authorities a decade later, during its centenary year. It was taken from the same museum again in 2010, and has never been recovered.

Officials detained two suspects at Cairo International Airport a few hours after the painting went missing for the second time, but these arrests turned out to be red herrings and the real thief or thieves vanished with the piece.

Le Pigeon aux Petits Pois (1911), Pablo Picasso

In 2010, the biggest heist since the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum theft took place at the Musée de l’Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris. Among the $100 million worth of art stolen was this painting, The Pigeon With Green Beans, by Picasso.

According to the thief himself, the painting ended up in a trash bin when he panicked after a police phone-call. Apparently, the container was emptied by waste collection services before the painting was discovered. There’s some doubt around this account, so although it’s considered lost or destroyed the true fate of this piece remains obscure.

See Original Post

by Gary S. Miville CIPM II, CIPI, CPO

RIBI Security - Regional Vice President

As we work in our different areas throughout the United States there is a constant need for security professionals to network. We have organizations like ASIS International and the IFCPP which help us meet peer to peer, but ultimately we need to enhance our ability strengthen our network to include the Federal government organizations. One organization that I have found especially helpful and insightful is InfraGard.  InfraGard is an alliance for national infrastructure protection. This organization was formed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation around 2003 as a non-profit.  InfraGard’s liaison and outreach efforts have developed close working partnerships, not only between the private sector and the FBI, but with other pivotal agencies, to include the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and Small Business Administration (SBA).

InfraGard partnership is an association of persons who represent businesses, academic institutions, state and local law enforcement/public safety agencies, and other participants dedicated to sharing information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts against the U.S. The InfraGard National Members Alliance is comprised of 84 chapters representing over 50,000 vetted members, to include critical sector subject matter experts on protecting the 16 Critical Sectors.

InfraGard provides its members with unmatched opportunities to promote the physical and cyber security of their organizations, through access to a trusted, national network of Subject Matter Experts from the public and private sectors, and government stakeholders, at the local, state, and federal levels. InfraGard engages subject matter experts and address threat issues across each of the 16 sectors of critical infrastructures and key resources recognized by Presidential Policy Directive-21, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

To become a member of InfraGard there are a list of requirements.

If you are interested on becoming an InfraGuard member or you would just like to attend a meeting with a member. Go to www.infragard.org for more information.

Reposted from The Washington Post

A group representing FBI agents warned Thursday that the partial government shutdown is threatening national security as thousands of federal law enforcement professionals, working without pay, grow anxious that personal financial hardships may jeopardize their security clearances and as furloughs of their support staffs slow investigations.

The shutdown is the result of President Trump’s insistence that more miles of border wall be built in the interest of national security — to keep migrants and drugs from entering illegally — and Democrats’ refusal to go along with his demands for $5.7 billion in wall-construction funds. With the shutdown well into its third week, groups representing government employees ranging from those who patrol borders and guard courthouses to those who make undercover drug buys have expressed alarm that the political drama has reduced them to bargaining chips while they continue doing dangerous jobs that keep Americans safe.

“It’s uncharted territory, as this shutdown is going to be the longest in history,” said Thomas O’Connor, president of the FBI Agents Association. “For special agents, financial security is national security.”

Of particular concern to FBI personnel is Friday’s missed paycheck — their first since the shutdown began in late December.

In a letter to the White House and lawmakers, FBIAA leaders wrote that their agents “are subject to high security standards that include rigorous and routine financial background checks. . . . Missing payments on debts could create delays in securing or renewing security clearances, and could even disqualify agents from continuing to serve in some cases.”

O’Connor said FBI investigations already are being affected. No one at the FBI is getting paid, but investigators are still working while much of their support staffs, including some surveillance experts, are not, O’Connor said. The FBI lab in Quantico, Va., has faced significant staff reductions, and the money available for investigative expenses such as undercover drug buys is dwindling, he said.

“Operations are being hindered,” O’Connor said. “This situation is not sustainable.”

The FBI has nearly 13,000 special agents, and already some families are making tough choices to manage household finances. Several current FBI employees said Thursday they worry that there is no sign of the shutdown being resolved soon and that, as a result, they could miss not one but two paychecks.

Dave Gomez, a retired FBI supervisor whose wife works at the bureau, said he is pulling money from his retirement savings to make sure they can pay their mortgage.

Gomez, who experienced a shutdown during the Obama administration, said that back then he told his agents not to worry, because shutdowns last only a week or two, not long enough to miss a paycheck.

“What’s happening now is a shock for a lot of agents, and I think you will see a lot of agents stressed about missing a paycheck,” he said. “FBI agents aren’t different than other Americans in that a lot of people live paycheck to paycheck.”

The shutdown affects all the federal law enforcement agencies within the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. U.S. marshals guarding the trial of accused drug kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán in New York, amid extremely tight security, are working without pay. Agents with the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel and Customs and Border Protection officers all are working without pay and much of their support staffers.

“The thing that concerns us the most,” said Patrick O’Carroll, executive director of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, “is with all the ‘nonessential’ personnel that are not showing up. With active investigations and arrests, when you start taking out the analysts, you’re losing a big part of that.”

FLEOA has warned its members “to be extra vigilant and cautious performing your duties” because of the increased risks associated with not having support staffers available.

The shutdown debate is more complicated within the Border Patrol, because many of those agents support Trump’s demand for more wall construction.

Border Patrol union leaders appeared at the White House last week to show their support for Trump, despite agents working without pay. While the president continues to have broad support within the Border Patrol, some agents say there is growing worry among the rank and file about missed car payments and late mortgages. Many of those who are assigned to remote border towns are their families’ sole breadwinner.

“People have started to contact creditors,” said one agent in Arizona who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to reporters.

Morale is sinking because agents are already under strain after a busy period along the border, with record numbers of families coming across, according to one agent in South Texas who also spoke on the condition of anonymity. This agent, also not authorized to comment publicly, faulted Democrats for the shutdown.

The National Border Patrol Council’s fealty to the president is not shared by the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the blue-uniformed Customs and Border Protection officers assigned to U.S. ports of entry, an even larger workforce.

“If employees are working, they must be paid — and if there is not money to pay them, then they should not be working,” NTEU President Tony Reardon said in a statement Wednesday after his union filed a suit alleging that federal laws that force workers to stay on the job without pay are unconstitutional.

See Original Post

Reposted from The Denver Post

A representative of the Denver Art Museum told police the facility suffered nearly $2 million in losses following the vandalism spree last month in which a suspect is accused of damaging centuries-old artifacts from China and the Mayan civilization.

Museum officials said Monday they’re still working to determine total damages in the wake of the December incident. Staffers at the museum had not publicly attached a dollar figure to the vandalism.

Denver police arrested Jake Siebenlist, 18, on suspicion of felony criminal mischief in the amount of $1 million or more on Dec. 9. Siebenlist appeared briefly in court Monday, and is scheduled to be arraigned on the charge March 14, according to Denver District Attorney’s Office spokeswoman Carolyn Tyler.

Siebenlist reportedly pushed and shattered a glass structure, threw sculptures across a room and shattered artwork onto the ground in the museum’s “Stampede: Animals in Art” exhibit, according to a probable cause statement prepared by Denver police.

He also allegedly shoved museum patrons out of his way and tried to punch security officers who restrained him until police arrived. He was then transported to Denver Health Medical Center for minor injuries.

Among the damaged items were a rare Mayan vessel and a 19th-century Chinese vase.

The probable cause statement details damages and destruction to 10 items, estimated at about $1.93 million by a museum employee. The employee told police further evaluations likely would increase that amount, according to the document.

The Denver police document listed the damaged items as: Wolf Headdress Mask, Raven Rattle Tlingit, Jaina Style Figurine, Moche Portrait Bottle, Chinese Vase with Phoenixes, Moche Rattle Bowl, Mayan Fish-Shaped Vessel, Maya Vessel with God on Bird, Chinese Initiator Sculpture and Beware of Cranes Sculpture.

Museum spokeswoman Jena Pruett said Monday that the costs of the damages from the incident are still being evaluated as the museum works to repair some of the artwork, and she would not comment on estimated costs.

See Original Post

Reposted from Security Magazine

One after another, reports involving allegations of sexual misconduct continue to be made public. Many of these reports follow a similar scenario—a middle-aged, executive-level man allegedly uses his power and influence to target, and sometimes sexually assault, a person over whom he has power. When true, the events behind these stories can leave the victims and their families scarred and damaged for life. Given what’s at stake, many victims and their advocates have turned to Twitter to express solidarity and expose their alleged abusers, using the #MeToo hashtag. By now, the #MeToo movement has become a worldwide phenomenon, and its impact has put employers of every stripe on notice. 

In the United States, the federal government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been vocal on the topic. Recently, EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum publicly offered three overarching recommendations to employers attending an Ogletree Deakins Workplace Strategies conference: Change workplace culture; hold people accountable; and implement the right policies, procedures, and training. 

These directives are helpful, but seasoned security professionals, like their counterparts in HR, know that the problem requires more than recommendations and policy tweaks. Experienced security managers know that workplace behavior is modified and office cultures are changed when allegations of misconduct are taken seriously and investigated properly and thoroughly. Together, these serious attitudes and activities buttress what ethics and compliance experts call an organization’s compliance regime. When that regime is fair, disciplined, and combined with sound policies, clear expectations, and exemplary leadership, it forms the foundation of the organization’s culture and, ultimately, its reputation and identity.

Recognizing this, organizations of all sizes are increasingly turning to security professionals to either assist HR in conducting internal investigations or to conduct the investigations themselves. This is a serious responsibility, so it is important to keep in mind that a successful workplace investigation is a complex undertaking. It is time consuming and fraught with the potential for legal liability. It can also be expensive. 

A proper investigation requires an intricate mixture of skill, experience, and patience. Those who attempt one without an understanding of the fundamentals are more likely to fail. The case study ("From Consensual to Concerning,"​​​ below) is provided to help the reader better understand how these fundamentals play out during an investigation. 

​Fact Finding

Experienced investigators know that few workplace activities invoke so much risk—and at the same time, so much opportunity—as an investigation. An improperly conducted workplace investigation can be ruinous and harm the careers of everyone involved. But a well-executed investigation bolsters an organization’s culture, which in turn enhances its reputation and its identity.  

Successful investigations often rely on teams. In #MeToo investigations, the typical team includes three groups: fact finders, advisors, and decision makers. 

Fact finders gather information. They take direction from the appointed advisors and pursue the investigation’s objectives by means of thoughtful and deliberate fact-finding. Their purpose requires them to be objective, so they must do their work in a fair, impartial, thorough, and purposeful manner.

Fact finders’ tasks often include the gathering and proper preservation of physical, electronic, and testimonial evidence. Their results are typically packaged in a formal report and ultimately provided to the decision maker by way of the advisor. Under ideal circumstances, that advisor is legal counsel, so the fact finder’s report can be designated as attorney work product and shielded against unwanted discovery or disclosure. This practice is not nefarious; it is legal and proper and often in the best interest of all parties.

​Process 

To fulfill the objectives of the assigned investigation, the effective fact finder must have a process. Remarkably, many fact finders and decision makers, regardless of their level of experience or training, have little or no process to work with. Lacking this, the fact finders often spend more time and resources on their tasks than necessary, produce inconsistent results, and create unnecessary liabilities for those they serve. No investigation, regardless of its objectives or scope, can be successful if not properly engineered and driven by process. 

Although certain details may differ from incident to incident, the processes used by successful investigations usually have similar attributes. The investigation has meaningful and well-defined objectives; it is properly and lawfully executed; it is fair and impartial; and it produces results that are accurately documented and communicated. 

Also, to achieve maximum efficiency, an investigation should unfold incrementally and progressively, in distinct phases. Each phase should be engineered to build on the phase that preceded it. Generally, #MeToo investigations include these phases: assessment; preparation and planning; information and evidence gathering (fact finding), which usually includes the interviewing of the complainant; and verification and analysis, which invariably includes the interviewing of the alleged wrongdoer.

The investigation process should also be open to the possibility that additional complainants may come forward, necessitating  the expansion of the initial investigation. Indeed, organizations that are experienced in investigations often anticipate both new and expanded allegations once the investigation of the initial complaint begins. This anticipation helps the organization craft and implement containment strategies and bake them into the overall investigative approach.

For example, one such containment strategy is to lock down the scope of the initial allegations with written statements provided by the accuser. Doing so prevents subsequent embellishment of the initial complaints. 

As the investigation progresses, some fact finders put all their focus on the third phase—information gathering and the interviewing of the accuser—and then once they have amassed a rich collection of facts, evidence, and information, they conclude their investigation. This is a mistake, because even the most impressive collection of evidence requires analysis and verification. Without clarifying analysis, those to whom the fact finders report may receive an incomplete result, which may deny them a thorough understanding of the matter. 

The four phases of the investigative process give the fact finder the structure necessary to be effective. They also help when it comes to optics; following a phased process helps the fact finder transcend the dated image of a bumbling corporate gumshoe and may elevate him or her to the professional standing of an expert investigator.

​Results and Metrics

Fact finders should never play the role of decision maker. To do so is unfair and creates the appearance of prejudice. Sadly, HR professionals make this mistake frequently.

In many organizations, HR is routinely responsible for all internal investigations. In addition, HR either decides the appropriate discipline or makes recommendations regarding such to the decision makers. The criminal justice equivalent of this would be for law enforcement personnel to determine the punishment of those they arrest—clearly, not a wise practice. Similarly, investigative best practices call for all final decision making, as well as the disbursement of disciplinary or corrective action, to be a separate process from fact finding, and not conducted by the same people. 

Like most effective processes, the investigative process should generate measurable results. Frequently, organization leaders will measure results in terms of the actionable evidence accumulated. However, the first and most immediate metric should be return on investment (ROI). For example, properly engineered and executed investigations generally produce tangible, measurable results such as the recovery of stolen property or money, the termination of dishonest employees or vendors, or successful prosecution. Other possible measurable results are civil recovery, restitution, damage awards, and successful insurance claims. 

However, when investigating a #MeToo allegation, the achievement and recognition of measurable ROI is more difficult. Still, process-driven investigations enable the ability to generate statistical results that can be used over time to measure effectiveness and identify opportunities for process improvement. The ASIS International Investigations Standard (ANSI/ASIS INV.1-2015) identifies this methodology as the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) model.

When properly used, PDCA provides a repeatable and scalable framework for the conduct of one’s #MeToo investigations. Without process and structure, the investigator has no means to measure results and show value to their customer. Even worse, the process becomes more vulnerable to claims of bias, ineptitude, and discrimination. 

Legal Issues

Workplace investigations are fraught with liability. Internal investigations, by definition, involve the investigation of people who have a relationship with the organization. Usually, they are people the organization employs or does business with. Many consider themselves “insiders.” As such, they have special rights and expectations. They may carry a sense of entitlement and self-importance. 

These considerations add to the complexity of the fact-finding process, and to the reaction of the subject to the investigation’s findings and management’s corrective actions.

Clearly, this path is filled with legal obstacles and challenges. On the other hand, the totality of these complexities gives the properly prepared and equipped employer a decisive competitive advantage. The #MeToo investigator should have at least a working knowledge of criminal, civil, and employment law. 

The employer that can efficiently bring an end to workplace harassment, discrimination, or a toxic workplace without litigation or a public relations debacle has a significant competitive advantage over the employer that cannot. Thus, a skilled and savvy investigator can be an asset to almost any organization.   

​From Consensual to Concerning

Investigations in sexual harassment must address a variety of situations, many of which do not fit the typical #MeToo mold. For example, in one real-life incident, a romantic relationship turned sour, requiring security to launch an investigation.

The participants, whom we will call Christopher and Meredith, met each other at work. He was a regional vice president and she an entry-level analyst. Over a period of several months they began to date, and then entered into a consensual romantic relationship. Christopher started acting jealous and possessive, insisting that he know with whom Meredith talked, exchanged emails, and took breaks while at work. Meredith later described this as romantic obsessive behavior. She decided to terminate the relationship. 

Christopher, still driven by possessive feelings, began to stalk her. He started following her home after she left work. Meredith no longer felt safe at work or anyplace else, and she reported her concerns to HR. Pursuant to established protocols, HR immediately reached out to the director of corporate security and requested assistance to investigate Meredith’s allegations. Security, working with the legal department, determined that the matter was sufficiently work-related and that, if true, the claims were actionable. Thus, two investigators were assigned. The security director and HR discussed and defined the investigation’s objectives.

Meredith submitted to a formal interview. She revealed that not only was Christopher constantly monitoring her at work, but he was following her everywhere, even when she was on vacation. Further investigation produced evidence that Christopher used the organization’s email system to communicate threats. In addition, Christopher was using company computers to store inappropriate images of Meredith, which were secretly taken by him without her consent. 

Though engaged by HR, the investigation team reported to general counsel, thus preserving the attorney work product privilege. Upon viewing Meredith’s written allegations, Christopher’s threatening email messages to her, and the stored images, counsel advised HR that Christopher’s termination was both appropriate and legally defensible. However, counsel also recommended that Christopher be interviewed and asked to explain his behavior and provide any extenuating circumstances or mitigating evidence. 

During the subsequent interview with the investigator and his witness, Christopher conceded his obsession with Meredith and his related behavior. In writing, he agreed to cease this unwanted behavior, resign, and never communicate with Meredith again.

Following the acceptance of his resignation, Christopher left quietly. This case reveals a few valuable lessons. One is that a team approach to #MeToo investigations improves efficiency and results. HR, security, and general counsel all worked together, and had important roles to play. Another is that allowing the terminated employee to leave with his or her dignity intact usually costs nothing and often produces priceless results.

Common Mistakes in #MeToo Investigations

1. Using law enforcement vernacular instead of the language of business. Good investigators use the language of their internal customer.

2. Seeking employee prosecution as an objective. The decision to prosecute should be made for business reasons only.

3. Bending the rules. Rules, policies, and laws provide organizations with structure and order. Failing to obey them is a disservice to the organization.

4. Interviewing the accused before properly interviewing the accuser and documenting his or her allegations.

5. Permitting or insisting that the fact finder make recommendations regarding corrective action. Leave this to the decision makers. 

See Original Post

Reposted from CBS News

Virtual reality is often associated with video games. But well-known companies are now using it as a tool to train for potentially dangerous situations. Major companies like Walmart, Chipotle and Verizon are using VR to prepare employees for what they could see on the job.

Verizon has more than 1,600 stores across the country where front-line employees help people get connected and buy the latest gadgets to do so. But the harsh reality is that those hot-ticket items make them a target for armed robberies, a dangerous scenario that could be difficult to imagine – until now.

In one digital scenario, two gunmen strike as the store opens, taking one employee hostage and going straight for the safe. It was only a simulation, but as CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil learned firsthand at a Verizon training site outside Washington, D.C., the fear was all too real.

"VR takes your brain elsewhere, so I am standing here in a classroom and my brain thinks I'm on a factory floor, on an airplane tarmac, in a Verizon store. So it's basically like visualization on steroids," said Derek Belch, the founder of Strivr, which builds virtual experiences as a training tool first for football teams and now for a growing number of major companies.    

Virtual reality is often associated with video games. But well-known companies are now using it as a tool to train for potentially dangerous situations. Major companies like Walmart, Chipotle and Verizon are using VR to prepare employees for what they could see on the job.

Verizon has more than 1,600 stores across the country where front-line employees help people get connected and buy the latest gadgets to do so. But the harsh reality is that those hot-ticket items make them a target for armed robberies, a dangerous scenario that could be difficult to imagine – until now.

In one digital scenario, two gunmen strike as the store opens, taking one employee hostage and going straight for the safe. It was only a simulation, but as CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil learned firsthand at a Verizon training site outside Washington, D.C., the fear was all too real.

"VR takes your brain elsewhere, so I am standing here in a classroom and my brain thinks I'm on a factory floor, on an airplane tarmac, in a Verizon store. So it's basically like visualization on steroids," said Derek Belch, the founder of Strivr, which builds virtual experiences as a training tool first for football teams and now for a growing number of major companies.    

See Original Post

Reposted from Skift

Safety and security has been a key consideration in event planning for decades, but new threats from acts of terrorism, extreme weather, and pandemics are increasing the need for diligence.

Experts note a widening of scope surrounding security, which can at times present a complicated challenge to meeting planners as they work with event stakeholders to safeguard attendees and stay informed on emerging safety issues.

In a world now increasingly defined by economic and political instability, the process of event design has become entangled with risk mitigation. While incidents like 2017’s Las Vegas shooting and Manchester Arena bombing are rare, the strategies of event planners have been influenced by the reality that unpredictable threats seem to have proliferated in recent years.

“What was simply focused on numbers of passengers per flight and company drug and alcohol policies has now become much more specific and encompassing,” said Fernando Lonergan, senior director of Australia and Regional Sales and Solutions at BCD Meetings & Events, citing factors such as the political stability of potential destinations, health of bilateral government relationships of the customer’s source market with the destination, and the emergency response capabilities of third parties.

According to Society for Incentive Travel Excellence Chief Marketing Officer Padraic Gilligan, duty of care and emergency preparedness are a given for any event, but the bar is constantly being raised.

He cited emergency preparedness certification from industry associations like the Association of Destination Management Executives International which he said is further raising awareness of duty of care across the full business events spectrum, “so it’s not just the focus of the end-user corporation but other agents along the supply chain which need to be duty of care-aware”.

Gilligan said more corporations are taking extra precautions such as bringing their own security details to destinations where they are staging incentive programs.

“What was simply focused on numbers of passengers per flight and company drug and alcohol policies has now become much more specific and encompassing,” said Fernando Lonergan, senior director of Australia and Regional Sales and Solutions at BCD Meetings & Events, citing factors such as the political stability of potential destinations, health of bilateral government relationships of the customer’s source market with the destination, and the emergency response capabilities of third parties.

According to Society for Incentive Travel Excellence Chief Marketing Officer Padraic Gilligan, duty of care and emergency preparedness are a given for any event, but the bar is constantly being raised.

He cited emergency preparedness certification from industry associations like the Association of Destination Management Executives International which he said is further raising awareness of duty of care across the full business events spectrum, “so it’s not just the focus of the end-user corporation but other agents along the supply chain which need to be duty of care-aware”.

Gilligan said more corporations are taking extra precautions such as bringing their own security details to destinations where they are staging incentive programs.

“We are certainly seeing a change in the way our clients think about health and safety,” he said, adding that this is being reflected in increased reconnaissance of the venue space before the event, engaging with intelligence agencies, together with use of media monitoring software to identify risks, increased use of external security consultants, providing close personal protection for VIPs and requesting evacuation plans and procedures from the venue.

MEASURES MUST ENHANCE SECURITY WITHOUT IMPACTING ON DELEGATES

Events should be about maximizing the delegate experience, which begins with an assurance that they will be safe and secure. Ideally, they shouldn’t be aware of the measures once the event begins.

As Gilligan pointed out, “Duty of care and emergency preparedness should run quietly and seamlessly in the background. It need not directly impinge on the program itself other than in the reassuring security briefings and communications … in advance of their travel.”

Stricter access control and bag inspections are now commonplace and proactive events organizers are transforming these from an inconvenience to a reassurance.

Bag checks and metal detection wanding are now commonplace at a lot of Melbourne’s events, according to Horne. But behind the scenes, the facility has enhanced its use of closed-circuit TV by applying facial recognition and artificial intelligence.

Lonergan also advocates wider use of electronic chip technology in event lanyards. “Not only does it assist in heat mapping delegate movements within the program, it also supports delegate identification, ensuring that duty of care of the company assets are being shared with the right audience,” he explained.

Bruce McIndoe, founder of security firm WorldAware, sees security as a shared responsibility among all in the meetings and events supply chain.

“What will be critical to ensuring we execute comprehensive and thoughtful duty of care practices is continued collaboration and communications across the industry to pull all the various efforts on this front together,” he said.

The security expert advocated four key requirements for event planners:
· Perform a location and site assessment.
· Conduct a venue and hotel selection.
· Designate a risk management and security point of contact.
· Review emergency planning.

In addition, WorldAware recommends proactive training of all parties involved and the continuous monitoring of potential impacts to safety, security, and brand reputation as paramount in providing a safe, secure operating environment.

The final requirement is good communication: “A plan only works if people are aware it exists and understand their role in executing that plan. Planners often underestimate the broader set of resources (onsite and back home) that need to have visibility into these plans,” McIndoe said.

See Original Post

Reposted from The Guardian

Outside the National Archives in Washington, a sign says “Closed.”

“We’re sorry,” it reads. “Due to the shutdown of the federal government, the Washington DC facility is closed.”

This museum is not alone; government-funded Smithsonian museums in New York and Washington, as well as the National Zoo, are closed due to a partial government shutdown, which kicked off on 22 December over border security issues, forcing thousands of federal workers to work without pay or take unpaid time off.

“We can’t reopen until we have a federal budget, so it all depends on a call from the White House,” said Linda St Thomas, the chief spokesperson of the Smithsonian Institution. “When we get federal funding, we will reopen immediately.”

All 19 museums, including the National History Museum, the African Art Museum and the Portrait Gallery, are losing out on a great number of visitors. They’re accustomed to drawing 1 million visitors a month, according to St Thomas.

“We go by month, it depends on the weather,” she said. “I think it’s roughly 1 million visitors for all 19 museums for the month of January.”

All special events and programs, including lectures and films scheduled at the museums has been postponed until after the shutdown or are cancelled. The highly coveted exhibits – including the Oprah Winfrey retrospective at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the presidential portrait of Barack Obama at the National Portrait Gallery – will resume after funding is restored.

The US Botanic Garden in Washington is also open daily, “having been funded for the fiscal year”, said Devin Dotson, its head of public affairs. “We continue to welcome visitors from across the United States and around the world to explore our collection."

The estimated 2019 budget for all Smithsonian museums is $957m. The funding includes a multi-million dollar roof repair of the Hazy Center, a renovation of thew National Air and Space Museum, funding to fix the ongoing infrastructure at the National Zoo and a renovation of the west wing at the National Museum of American History.

In the meantime, the Washington tourism board is trying to shed light on other attractions for culture-seeking visitors; like the food scene and live sport (which may or may not satisfy art aficionados).

“While we’re disappointed the Smithsonian museums are closed, the vast majority of things for visitors to see and do throughout Washington’s neighborhoods remain open,” said Elliott L Ferguson II, president and CEO of Destination DC. “It’s a great time to find a deal in the city and explore our Michelin-rated dining scene, watch a hockey or basketball game at Capitol One Arena or catch a show at one of the city’s many venues.”

Other museums are still open, including the National Museum of Women in the Arts, the Phillips Collection, the Museum of the Bible and National Law Enforcement Museum. The Newseum, a museum devoted to journalism, announced yesterday that they are offering free admission to federal employees during the shutdown.

While the National Zoo is closed, the Smithsonian claims “essential personnel” are on site to care for the animals during the shutdown, though they remain closed to the public.

Museum-goers remain disappointed by the closure, by what it represents to museum workers and arts administrators.

“This administration has made it clear through budget cuts and ignorant tweets that the arts and cultural education are of little value or importance,” said Whitney Bell, a Los Angeles-based artist, writer and founder of a talk series called The Stories Of Women.

“Hundreds of thousands of jobs furloughed and millions of Americans left without access to our most important cultural institutions, historic landmarks and influential art, and for what?” she asks.

“A xenophobic wall that flies in the face of the melting-pot ideology this country was built on. This, like everything else Trump has done, is designed to whip up and manipulate fear to further an agenda that only protects his pitiful legacy, at the expense of the American people.”

See Original Post

Reposted from The Brussels Times

Mehdi Nemmouche, the man accused of carrying out the attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels in May 2014, visited the museum the day prior to the attack, the court where he is on trial heard.

Four people died in the gun attack. Nemmouche was identified by security camera footage, and later arrested in Marseilles in possession of weapons, which he claimed to have found. According to the prosecution, those weapons, including a Kalashnikov from Croatia, were the same as those used in the attack.

The second full day of the trial consisted of the prosecution setting out the case against Nemmouche and his co-accused Nacer Bendrer, accused of helping organise the attack and the flight of Nemmouche. A third man, Mounir Attallah, had charges against him dropped and will testify as a witness.

Evidence that Nemmouche visited the museum emerges from camera footage from the previous day, which shows him entering the museum and approaching volunteer worker Alexandre Strens. They have a brief conversation, and then the man identified as Nemmouche leaves. Strens was next day one of the four victims – two museum staff and two Israeli visitors. The court also heard that three of the victim had died immediately. Strens, the fourth, died later in hospital.

The trial resumes on Tuesday morning.

See Original Post

Reposted from Mental Floss

On August 21, 1911, the Mona Lisa was stolen from Paris’s Louvre Museum. It was a Monday—the museum was closed and security was minimal—and the thief had reportedly spent the weekend plotting the heist while hiding in one of the museum’s closets.

At the time, security at the Louvre was abysmal. There were less than 150 security personnel in charge of guarding 250,000 artifacts, and none of the paintings were bolted to the walls. (The Mona Lisa, for example, hung from four measly hooks.) According to Ian Shank at Artsy, “Months before the heist, one French reporter had spent the night in a Louvre sarcophagus to expose the museum’s paltry surveillance.”

After the painting's disappearance, France’s borders were effectively closed, with officials examining every vehicle crossing the country's eastern border. Media coverage of the heist spread across the globe, turning the little-known painting into a household name. The Paris-Journal offered 50,000 francs for the painting’s return. Soon, a tip from an art thief would cause police to turn their attention toward one of the country’s most promising young artists: Pablo Picasso.

Picasso, who had moved to Paris a decade earlier, lived with a gaggle of Bohemians dubbed la bande de Picasso. Among this crew was the poet and writer Guillaume Apollinaire, whose former secretary was Honore-Joseph Géry Pieret, a Belgian man of questionable morals. Shortly after the Mona Lisa was stolen, Pieret—lured by the possibility of a cash reward—stepped into the Paris-Journal's office and claimed that he had lifted art from the Louvre before and had given the works to "friends."

Pieret was telling the truth. In 1907, he had stolen at least two Iberian sculptures made in the 3rd or 4th century BCE and sold them to Picasso, who paid him 50 francs per piece. (Picasso used these artifacts to inspire his work Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. [PDF]) That wasn't all. According to Nick Mafi at The Daily Beast, Pieret also stole a similar piece from the Louvre in 1911 and placed it on Apollinaire’s mantel.

The police read about Pieret's exploits with great interest. They believed that the people who were in possession of these sculptures might also have the Mona Lisa. And they didn’t have much trouble piecing together who, exactly, the thief's friends were.

Realizing that they were in deep trouble, Picasso and Apollinaire packed the Iberian sculptures into a suitcase and ran off in the middle of the night with plans of throwing the artworks into the river Seine. But when the two artists reached the water, they could not will themselves to dump the statues. Instead, Apollinaire visited the Paris-Journal the next morning, deposited the statues, and demanded that the newspaper give him anonymity. The newspaper agreed ... until the authorities stepped in.

Within days of Apollinaire's visit to the newspaper, the police had detained him. In early September, Picasso was ordered to appear before a magistrate. When asked if he knew Apollinaire, the terrified painter lied. “I have never seen this man,” he replied.

Recalling the events, Picasso said, “I saw Guillaume’s expression changed. The blood ebbed from his face. I am still ashamed.” As the proceedings continued, Picasso wept.

Although both men were indeed in possession of stolen art, the judge determined that the situation had nothing to do with the Mona Lisa’s disappearance and decided to throw the case out. Two years later, both men would be cleared of any possible connection to the crime when police discovered the painting had been stolen by Vincenzo Peruggia, an Italian artist who had been working at the Louvre.

See Original Post