Nightmare at Reagan National Airport: A Security Story to End all Security Stories

Sippy Cup Spill Sparks Tiff at National Airport
TSA Uses Web to Counter Mother's Allegation of Improper Detention

By Del Quentin Wilber and Cindy Loose
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, June 16, 2007; Page D01

Federal security officials took the unusual step yesterday of posting
an incident report and security camera footage on their Web site
allegations that screeners and police officers at Reagan National
Airport mistreated a mother and her toddler this week. At issue is
whether Monica Emmerson, a former Secret Service officer and District
resident, was improperly detained when she spilled water out of her
child's sippy cup.

The story emerged Thursday morning and spread quickly on the Internet
yesterday, as bloggers expressed outrage at the alleged treatment of
the woman. The first blogger to pick up Emmerson's tale was Bill
Adler, a District author who said he usually blogs only about issues
in his Cleveland Park neighborhood. He was alerted to the airport saga
by his wife, who spotted a note Emmerson wrote on a local e-mail mass
mailing for parents ( http://www.dcurbanmom.com).

Adler said he thought the story was interesting, so he contacted
Emmerson and interviewed her.

Cobbling together the interviews and her e-mail missive, Adler wrote
on his blog that "nothing I've read about or experienced comes close
to what Monica Emmerson experienced while at Reagan National Airport."

He then related Emmerson's account: As she was going through security,
a screener with the Transportation Security Administration asked if
there was water in her 19-month-old son's sippy cup. For nearly a
year, TSA has banned most fluids and gels from carry-on luggage
because it is concerned about liquid explosives.

The screener then seized the cup, Adler related, causing Emmerson's
son to wail. Emmerson was told that if she wanted to keep the cup, she
should leave the security checkpoint, dump out the water and return.

As she turned to leave, Emmerson "accidentally spilled" the water, she
and Adler wrote.

Emmerson reported that she was then threatened with arrest and ordered
to clean up the water on the floor. She said that she was detained by
seven police officers and screeners. "I was being held against my
will," she wrote.

She was eventually allowed back through security without being
arrested or charged. She missed her flight, she said, but eventually
got on another one.

Emmerson declined to comment last night but said that Adler's story
was "accurate."

Such stories of poor treatment at the hands of TSA screeners and
police usually end there, with little public notice or outcry. But TSA
officials, after being contacted by a Post reporter about the
incident, took the unusual step of responding to the online criticism.
They posted video clips taken by a security camera, along with an
incident report that they believe rebuts Emmerson's allegations, on a
portion of the TSA Web site called MythBusters.

TSA officials said they felt obligated to respond because their
screeners were not at fault. "As this incident illustrates, these
officers display professionalism and concern for all passengers," TSA
officials wrote in a statement.

The video is clear on some points but not on others. Emmerson is seen
being escorted out of the security checkpoint area by a screener. It
then appears that she intentionally dumps water out of the sippy cup
onto the floor and tries to slip back through security without going
through the screening process, drawing the attention of a police
officer.

She talks to the officer as she digs around in her son's stroller,
apparently for her identification. The officer's supervisor arrives,
and then Emmerson's fiance appears. Within a few minutes, Emmerson is
on her hands and knees, drying up the puddle with a handful of paper
towels. A TSA screener nearby makes sure nobody slips on the water and
takes Emmerson's wet paper towels.

In the incident report, a TSA officer wrote that before Emmerson was
escorted out of the checkpoint area, she flashed her "Secret Service
badge and credentials and said she should be exempt from all this and
this was a stupid policy."

Secret Service officials declined comment on Emmerson's employment
status.

Tara Hamilton, an airport spokeswoman, said the first officer on the
scene acted appropriately and responded only because she thought
Emmerson was trying to cut back through security after dumping the
water.

Adler, who watched the video yesterday afternoon, said he wasn't sure
it proved anything.

"I get the impression that some of what she has said and wrote may not
be completely what happened," Adler said. "She may have gotten some of
the details wrong. . . . But I think the only person who can narrate
this is Monica."

AP - ARLINGTON, Va. - ***
The video that TSA posted on its Web site Friday shows Emmerson
being escorted from the security checkpoint as she appears to take
the top off the sippy cup and shake it upside down.

It shows that after she was confronted by several officers, she used
paper towels fetched by the TSA to clean up the spot as other
passengers stream by her.

"The allegation here that we were out of control is absolutely false,"
said Earl Morris, deputy assistant administrator for security operations
with the TSA. "If you look at the report and the video itself, it shows
she's the only one who was out of control."

hummingbird writes:

I'm sure you're right. A very sad state of affairs.
Obviously these people are not managers or leaders, just bosses.

I'm not sure that there's any clear distinction among these.

I've always found it difficult to understand why many bosses are so
crap when enormous personal satisfaction can be achieved by being
a good one.

Many people are too stupid to be good bosses (the usual reason), or have
psychological issues that prevent them from being good.

The demand for intelligent, competent managers is much greater than the
supply, so there are a lot of losers working in management.

Additionally, a corporate culture that makes it impossible for an employee to
be paid more than any manager, and requires that any increase in salary also
involve at least a nominal climb up the management ladder, means that a great
many people are in management who should never have been there. For the same
reason, most companies have more managers than they need, and far more
management levels than are really required. This costs a lot of money, both
in sheer numbers and due to incompetence.

R Brickston writes:

Adler, who watched the video yesterday afternoon, said he wasn't sure
it proved anything.

"I get the impression that some of what she has said and wrote may not
be completely what happened," Adler said. "She may have gotten some of
the details wrong. . . . But I think the only person who can narrate
this is Monica."

Her body language from the beginning seems to indicate a combative attitude,
in contrast to the TSA personnel and other passengers. I'm afraid the video
dramatically undermines her story, at least with respect to who was being nice
and who wasn't. Her attitude may have been the fairly common attitude of LEOs
and their ilk who believe themselves entitled to special consideration.

If she really did flash any kind of SS credential to get special treatment,
she should be fired, as that's not an acceptable attitude for anyone in the
Secret Service.

TSA was smart to publish the video.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:55:35 +0200 'Mxsmanic'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:

hummingbird writes:

I'm sure you're right. A very sad state of affairs.
Obviously these people are not managers or leaders, just bosses.

I'm not sure that there's any clear distinction among these.

see my sig-line


I've always found it difficult to understand why many bosses are so
crap when enormous personal satisfaction can be achieved by being
a good one.


Many people are too stupid to be good bosses (the usual reason), or have
psychological issues that prevent them from being good.

The demand for intelligent, competent managers is much greater than the
supply, so there are a lot of losers working in management.

Indeed.

Additionally, a corporate culture that makes it impossible for an employee to
be paid more than any manager, and requires that any increase in salary also
involve at least a nominal climb up the management ladder, means that a great
many people are in management who should never have been there. For the same
reason, most companies have more managers than they need, and far more
management levels than are really required. This costs a lot of money, both
in sheer numbers and due to incompetence.

Mainly true.
But it shouldn't mean that the executives are ignorant from knowing
that a motivated workforce which is well fed and watered is a
productive workforce. That in turn raises corporate productivity and
ultimately improves the bottom line. A win-win for those who see it.

--
Boss or Leader?
A Boss creates fear; A Leader creates confidence.
A Boss creates resentment; a Leader breeds enthusiasm.
A Boss says:I; A Leader says:We.
A Boss fixes blame; A Leader fixes mistakes.
A Boss knows how; A Leader shows how.
A Boss makes work drudgery; A Leader makes work interesting.
A Boss relies on authority; A Leader relies on co-operation.
A Boss drives; A Leader leads.
- Anonymous

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
hummingbird writes:

A boss who doesn't support his staff wherever possible
isn't a boss for very long.

I've seen bosses who remain that way for a very long time. They need only
the
support of their superiors, not of their subordinates.

One can only imagine how such organizations function. Or maybe not even
imagine. Many of us work in them.

hummingbird writes:

see my sig-line

Thanks. It seems a bit idealistic.

But it shouldn't mean that the executives are ignorant from knowing
that a motivated workforce which is well fed and watered is a
productive workforce. That in turn raises corporate productivity and
ultimately improves the bottom line. A win-win for those who see it.

Then why is it so rare?

Sancho Panza writes:

One can only imagine how such organizations function. Or maybe not even
imagine. Many of us work in them.

Many companies manage to stumble along despite incompetent management. It
depends on the business they are in, the amount of competition, etc.

For example, many restaurants are very poorly managed, but it's not hard to
make money with a restaurant, so they survive.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Sancho Panza writes:

One can only imagine how such organizations function. Or maybe not even
imagine. Many of us work in them.

Many companies manage to stumble along despite incompetent management. It
depends on the business they are in, the amount of competition, etc..

I suspect that you and I might have quite different perceptions of the
definition of incompetent management, often perceived in the eye of the
beholder (or of a bitter non-productive employee). I've know companies with
more than competent management to fail, just as I can think of some led by
dunderheads which succeed, usually because the dunderhead is smart enough
not to pull out the profits.

There aren't ernough good managers to go around, and for many companies,
hiring new young staff suited for and willing to struggle to get management
jobs later in their careers has become harder in many US markets. Many
potential hires don't realize that the road to "management" is paved by
extra hours, extra work, and the occasional kissing ass.... Young lawyers,
starting with prestigous law firms and expecting quick roads to partnership
are routinely expected to put in 70 hours a week. The major consulting
firms are equally demanding of those expecting to rise quickly in the ranks.


For example, many restaurants are very poorly managed, but it's not hard
to
make money with a restaurant, so they survive.

Since, in the US at least, restaurants have the higher failure rate than
almost any of the types of small businesses, well over the average 50%/12
months, I suspect that your contention is worse than wrong, it's
wrong-headed. Small owner-operated restaurants have extremely low return on
capital and the hours of work put in by the operator when translated into
earnings are shocking. You can make a bit more selling booze, but in most
states the cost of a license is beyond the means of a small operator. These
days, even the big chains are routinely shuttering properties which don't
make expected profit levels, but not until after attempting to transfuse
experienced "good" managers to determine whether management alone was the
cause. A small restaurant owner doesn't have that option.

TMO

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

TSA was smart to publish the video.

Organizationally and politically, perhaps. It also probably violates 5 USC
552a.

--
Randy Hudson