Nov 6, 2024 By Mike Jones 5 min read

Additional security guards hired to help state constables protect polling locations across Washington County for Tuesday’s election were pulled at the last minute after county officials told the company that its workers could not be armed while working outside the precincts.

RiP Security of Fallowfield Township was poised to have 20 armed security guards working inside various precincts Tuesday, but that plan fell apart when the contractors could not be deputized in time to work as temporary constables, which are utilized to protect voting locations.

After a proposed court order to appoint the guards as deputy constables was rejected Monday, county officials said they would instead be stationed at least 100 feet outside polling locations to help in an emergency. But hours later, county officials contacted RiP Security leadership and told them of the new plan that included the guards not being armed.

That was an unacceptable requirement for RiP CEO Duztin Watson, who said they received few details from the county and would not send the company’s employees to work security without firearms.

“It was a great disconnect between us and what happened with the decision makers,” Watson said. “We just said we can’t do this. We have the contract (and) this is at the 11th hour. Our agents are not willing to go to these locations. … We’re not going to make a risky decision. And at the last minute, the whole job fell apart.”

While constables were stationed at some polling stations and sheriff’s deputies were outside other locations, the decision not to use RiP meant there was no additional security at many of the 180 precincts in the county. No emergencies or major issues were reported in Washington County during the election.

Stephanie Rosser, who serves as RiP’s COO and general counsel, said the company initially spoke to county Chief of Staff Daryl Price about security options in August, and the two sides came to an agreement on Oct. 22. But it soon became clear that there would be several legal hoops the company and county would have to jump through in order to have its employees working inside the precincts since there is a specific process to appoint someone a deputy constable. When that appeared to no longer be an option Monday, Rosser said she received a phone call from Elections Director Melanie Ostrander in the afternoon informing her that the contractors would not be deputized and would not be armed while working outside the precincts.

A couple hours later, Rosser spoke to Ostrander and county solicitor Gary Sweat about the situation, and they agreed that they could not move forward since they could not find common ground on whether the workers should be armed.

“We did not feel that was safe. We were not going to put our team in danger,” Rosser said. “We were very excited and proud to keep the community safe. Our team was geared up and ready to go.”

Sweat said Tuesday that once the deputy constable option fell through, county officials did not see a need to have armed security near the polls.

“I did not feel comfortable with security guards being armed. That’s dangerous and it’s an assignment that doesn’t rise to that level,” Sweat said. “I would have felt better if we were able to follow the elections statute for security at the precincts.”

Sweat said the county hoped their presence – even while not being armed – would give an added layer of security to ensure no one was blocking access to polling locations and so they could assist in the event of an emergency.

“You can be security guards – wear your uniforms for the presence – but when they were adamant about carrying arms, that’s where I drew the line,” Sweat said.

The county had planned to use its state election integrity grant money to pay RiP Security $67.50 per hour per worker, which would have cost around $18,000 for the 13-hour day while the polls were open. With the contract not fulfilled, it was unknown whether the county would pay the contractor for time spent on training or other stipends since the employees had planned to work Tuesday.

Watson indicated he wouldn’t take legal action against the county, but he wants a meeting with officials to figure out what happened.

“Just to explain the amount of disconnect and why we were left out of communications,” Watson said. “It was a critical failure regarding security. It was supposed to be there for the public. ‘What’s going on here? Why did they wait so long? Why was it pushed down the line? Why wasn’t there security for the community?’ Everybody was ready to go and protect the community.”

Sweat said he would be open to eventually having a meeting, although he and other county officials were focusing on the election and subsequent administrative steps in the coming weeks, such as certifying the results.

“I don’t think it’s necessary, but I’m not against (a meeting),” Sweat said. “After the dust settles and this (election) is done, if they want a meeting we’ll sit down with them.”