NEW YORK—Should credit unions train employees on how to deal with an "active gunman" entering a branch the same way they conduct fire drills and other safety and security measures?
Yes, say two CU industry experts, because there's a big difference between an "active shooter" vs. an armed robber attempting to steal money.
"An 'active shooter' typically is not a robber," said James Green, business continuity program manager at PSCU, a CUSO based in St, Petersburg, Fla. "Usually, he is a member, or even an employee, seeking to endanger the safety and lives of people working or visiting a credit union and to inflict grievous bodily injury."
Robert Jarosinski, senior consultant in risk management for CUNA Mutual Group, agreed. When dealing with an active shooter on the premises, CU employees need to do the opposite of what they would normally do when confronting an armed robber, according to Jarosinski.
"A robber enters the credit union seeking to steal money, not necessarily to kill anyone," he said. "And he wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In that case, we urge credit union staff to comply with the robber and give him what he wants, which is cash, in order to save lives. But with an armed gunman—whose sole purpose is to cause loss of life—we recommend credit union employees simply run away as far and as fast as possible."
Jarosinski noted that while the presence of an active shooter in a CU is unlikely, the emergence of such tragedies in recent years makes it necessary for CUs to prepare for it.
Active shooters in a workplace are typically not random acts of violence because the perpetrator is looking for specific victims based on some real or imagined grievance, Green noted "It might be a member whose house was foreclosed and he blames the credit union as a whole," he said. "It might be an employee who has felt slighted by his bosses or colleagues and seeks revenge. It might be a recently fired employee who comes back to threaten people he blames for his termination."
"The cost of such preparation would be nil and not at all labor-intensive," Green said. "Running a drill, say, once a month or once a quarter, would not eat up much time, nor disrupt business operations and could potentially save lives."
The exact nature of such preparation would vary, depending on the size of the branch and the crime rate in the area.
Green said employees should follow the credo of "run-hide-fight." "When an active shooter enters the workplace, the first and best option is to run as far away as possible," he said. "If it is impossible to run away, the next best option is to hide oneself in a secure room. If that is unfeasible, the third—and least attractive and least desirable—option is to fight the gunman."
That last option, Green pointed out, may sound dangerous, but there have been cases where a group of unarmed people has been able to overpower an armed gunman.
Given the popularity of social media, if an employee (or former employee) starts making threats on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram accounts, employees should notify their supervisors immediately.
Credit unions with branches in states that allow "open-carry" or "concealed carry" of weapons should also be on higher alert and establish clear policies regarding the carry of any firearm into a branch, according to Green. "Such tragedies have gone from 'impossible' to 'improbable,'" he said. "But since the likelihood of such an incident—as slim as that is—presents a danger to human life, it should be well prepared for."
Jarosinski noted that many CUs have branches on college campuses and military bases—exactly the kinds of places that have suffered horrific massacres in recent years.
"This would give credit unions a unique position among financial institutions," he said, adding that all credit unions should plan for the unthinkable. "The credit union's most valuable asset is the lives of their employees."
