You are on page 1of 1


From: (b) (6)

To: (b) (6)
Subject: Fw: Man Gates
Date: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:16:19 PM


----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Mon Jan 07 14:13:55 2008
Subject: Re: Man Gates

Thanks. I'll get with SWB and see how they want to address it locally. I think it would be a good idea
to notify them ahead of time especially at a time when the designs and locations are being finalized.

----- Original Message -----

From: (b) (6)
To: (b) (6) ; SELF, JEFFREY D
Sent: Mon Jan 07 13:57:10 2008
Subject: RE: Man Gates

My initial response would be to recommend that this be done locally, but for notification purposes only.
I remember when the issues came up in SDC, as to where agents would work, which was between the
fences, it was a management operational prerogative that the union had a lot of heartburn over and
went to media outlets to fight. I believe we won that one pretty soundly. Access issues and placement
of the gates, although again an operational decision, we could and should let them know at the local
level, but we should not be required to bargain over it.

(b) (6)

(b) (6)
Operations Planning and Analysis
Office of Border Patrol
Customs and Border Protection, DHS

(b) (6)
(b) (6)

-----Original Message-----
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 1:46 PM
To: SELF, JEFFREY D; (b) (6)
Subject: Man Gates


I'm in Crystal City meeting with Boeing and Army Corps. We are discussing fence design and supply
chain management. A thought just occured to me regarding our obligation to involve the Union by
notifyng them of changes to the work environment. This would only pertain to Texas levees and areas
where agents will be operating south of the fence.

I recall this being an issue in SDC with the construction of the secondary fence. Do we want to broach
the subject? If so, do we leave this to each Sector to workout individually or work this at HQ level? If
we end up installing man gates every 300 ft., this could significantly drive up costs.