Chapter 20

Bill’s meeting was open to everyone. My key people were seated at a table, and the other attendees were seated in chairs along the walls. All four of my wives were in attendance, with Cindy sitting at the table next to me.

During prior meetings we developed a set of rules for conducting our meetings. A meeting was divided into participants and observers; with participants seated at the table, and observers seated along the walls or elsewhere in the room. The person introducing a topic controlled the topic’s discussion. In our larger and more formal meetings, a person was to raise their hand and wait until they were acknowledged by the person controlling the discussion. They did not stand and start speaking until after they were acknowledged, and the current speaker sat down. In the event two people had their hands up when the current speaker finished, the first person to raise their hand was normally recognized as the new speaker.

We each knew that we would be given adequate opportunity to voice our opinions, so there was no rush to be the first person to present their position on a topic. In many of our discussions, being the last person to present an opinion, gave that person the advantage of knowing what others thought, and allowed them to tailor their presentation accordingly.

The observers sitting along the wall, who wanted to speak on the issue, had to stand and wait to be recognized by the person controlling the discussion. They would only be recognized, if no one sitting at the table had their hand raised. This approach may seem odd to many, but it worked for us.

As the Ambassador, I was in overall control of every meeting I attended. In most meetings, I opened the meeting by listing the topics to be discussed and then recognized the first speaker, usually the person who initiated the first topic.

“Bill would like to discuss Embassy Security, and that’s the only subject for this meeting. He and I talked about the topics that needed to be addressed, which include a Threat Warning System and procedures to be implemented for the Embassy Compound and the personal security of its inhabitants.”

I nodded to Bill before sitting down. He stood and said, “In one of our past meetings, I mentioned we needed a system that could be used to alert everyone associated with the Embassy of dangers. In conjunction with that system, I realized we would need to define the security measures to be used for each threat level.

“I have designed a threat level notification system, to let everyone in the Embassy Compound know the potential for being hurt by a known threat. I intend to also use this system to address the potential for being hurt by an unknown threat. By this I mean situations that could lead to a threat.

“I based our threat notification system on what is used by Homeland Security. I decided to establish five threat levels, which will be numbered from a low Threat Level of 1 to a critical Threat Level of 5. I considered establishing a ‘No Known Threat’ level, however I find it difficult to imagine ever needing to use that level. I suspect that having someone upset with us is going to be the normal state of affairs for a very long time.

“Each threat level will be assigned a color, which should make it easier to recognize the current threat level. I’m thinking of a light green for Level 1, and red for Level 5. I am still considering which colors to use for the other three levels. Currently, I’m thinking of yellow for Level 2, orange for Level 3, and I still need a third color for Level 4. Suggestions are welcome.

“The papers Sue is passing out to you define each of the threat levels I am proposing we use. If you will take the next five minutes to read the descriptions, we can then discuss them.”

Bill sat down so everyone could read his proposed definitions of each threat level. Those of us who couldn’t read English were having the document read to them by one of my Earth staff. I really needed to push, to get everyone to the point that they were competent in reading, writing, and speaking English.

In my opinion, Bill had done a good job of defining each threat level. His description of the factors to be considered in selecting the threat level, and to determine if it should be increased or decreased, made his system seem very workable. He could give this package to almost anyone at the Embassy, and they could implement it to select a suitable threat level and determine when it needed to be changed. Of course, that assumes the person is aware of the current state of the factors that affect the threat assessment process, and the ratings associated with each factor. The Threat Assessment Process was mentioned, but not included in his review package. That’s one of the things Bill was in the process of developing.

Bill stood and asked, “Does anyone need more time to review their package?”

After looking around the table, Bill said, “It appears that everyone is ready to discuss this topic. Does anyone have any observations they wish to present?”

Abby raised her hand and was recognized by Bill. She stood and said, “As Bill said, this is very similar to what is used by the US Government, and that’s a very good system. I think the threat levels are well defined in terms of threats to the Embassy and its personnel. It could use a few minor wording changes, but those can be addressed later. The one thing missing is the Threat Assessment Process. It’s mentioned in the package, but we didn’t get a review copy of the process.”

As Abby sat down, Bill stood and responded with, “Yes that’s true, Abby, and the reason is, I haven’t created the process yet. It will take a major effort to develop the process, and document it as a decision tree that anyone can use. I’m asking for volunteers to help define the process and create the decision tree.”

Before sitting down, Bill looked around the table and nodded to a couple of people. I didn’t see them indicating they would help, but evidently Bill did. Bill’s lead Security Guard Tammy was standing in the observers area, so before sitting down Bill asked, “Did you have something to say, Tammy?”

Tammy said, “I like the idea of a visual indicator that shows our current threat level. Do you intend to post this indicator in a single location or in multiple locations? Personally, I would favor multiple locations. Here at our temporary location, I think a sign should be posted at the main entrance of every third or fourth mobile home and portable. I haven’t thought about where they could be placed in the Embassy Compound, but outside the main entrance of every building should be considered. In the main Embassy building, they should also be located near the elevators on every level.”

Tammy returned control of the meeting to Bill, who rose and said, “Thank you, Tammy. Your locations for the signs make a lot of sense; although putting one on that many mobile homes and portables may be excessive. In my draft of the Policies and Procedures Manual, there is a section that will address the design and placement of the signs if this meeting agrees a warning system is to be implemented.

“Does anyone have anything else to say in favor of, or in disagreement with, my department implementing a Threat Warning System? ... Since, no one is indicating a desire for further discussion of the necessity for the system, I call for a show of hands vote.

“Everyone opposed to implementing a Threat Warning System, please raise your hand.”

Looking around the room, I could see no hands raised.

Bill said, “I see no hands raised, so everyone in favor of implementing a Threat Warning System, please raise your hand.”

As I looked around the room, I could see a sea of hands in the air. Only those seated at the table had a vote in the matter, but everyone’s hand was raised. I nodded to Bill so he knew I concurred with him proceeding with the development of his system.

Bill said, “From the number of hands that I see, it appears that everyone is in favor of us having a Threat Warning System. I will continue with the development of the system. As I said, I will appreciate help from anyone who wants to assist me with the development of the draft system.”

As I raised my hand, Bill recognized me and sat down, I said, “Based on our vote, Bill is to create a Threat Warning System. At this time, I would like us to address the measures we will be using to ensure the safety of the compound and our people. Bill and I discussed this topic on several occasions during the past weeks. Bill, please explain our thoughts on this topic.”

Standing as I sat down, Bill said, “The purpose of the Policies and Procedures is to define how the Security Department is to ensure the safety of the Embassy Compound and the safety of Embassy personnel and their families; here in the Embassy Compound and when we leave the compound.

“Tammy, it just occurred to me that the Embassy Compound gate and ranch exit are ideal places for signs. Remind me in case I forget.

“Now, we all want to be safe and do what is necessary to ensure the safety of our people. I hate having rules and regulations imposed on me. In most cases, I understand the necessity of those rules and regulations, but I still hate having to comply with them. I suspect everyone in this room feels the same way. The first question in my mind is how much regulation is necessary for an adequate level of safety. The second question in my mind is what to do with people who choose to not follow the rules, which we as a group feel are necessary. I want to discuss these two topics before we start defining what needs to be regulated.

Bill recognized Matt and sat down. Matt said, “Bill’s first question of how much is enough is very difficult to define. Most government organizations look at the question from the point of view of ‘How much is too much?’ and some organizations look at it as ‘What is the minimum necessary?’

“From my personal experiences, I think we need more than the minimum and less than the maximum. Of course, certain areas will need far more security than others, and we will also need to take into account the threat level. Other than that, I don’t know how to quantify ‘How much is enough?’

“As to Bill’s second question, I think we should set the determination of punishment for violating policies aside, until we can assess the potential impact of violating each policy. Then we can define a punishment suitable to the offense.”

Matt sat down and no one had their hand raised, so Bill stood and said, “What Matt said makes sense to me. Does anyone wish to discuss this topic further? ... Alright, let’s move on to the areas to be regulated?”

Now that part of the overall topic was a hot subject, and my wives were in the middle of the discussion. Sometimes it was difficult to determine if it was a discussion or an argument; so, to be diplomatic, I’ll call it a discussion. Bill had requested us to define areas to be regulated. However, almost everyone defined the areas to be regulated in terms of their personal freedoms.

After two hours of ‘discussion’, it was evident that we all agreed that we would need to give up some degree of personal freedom for the good of all. The disagreement was how much freedom should be surrendered, and which freedoms needed regulation. It seemed that no one could agree on the freedoms that needed to be regulated, and how much freedom needed to be surrendered in each area of regulation.

As we continued to sit and listen to speaker after speaker, Bill told me that it seemed as if we were wasting our time because he intended to regulate things, not freedoms. Although he was aware that any regulation of an area would affect people’s freedoms. I had to agree with him. Our speakers were identifying areas to be regulated, but they were spending most of their time arguing about how regulation of an area would impact their freedoms.

After listening to the discussion for another hour, Bill stood up and acknowledged me as the next speaker. When he sat down, I said, “This discussion seems to be going nowhere. We all agree that regulation is needed, but the areas and degrees of regulation necessary are items of contention. Therefore, I will make the decision on how to proceed with this matter.

“Bill, prepare a survey form listing all of the areas that our people have discussed regulating. For each area, provide a means for our people to indicate if the area should or should not be regulated, and a scale of how much regulation should be imposed. You may want to include a remarks section for each area and one for the general subject. When your survey form is finished, provide a copy to each of our people who are adults.

“Cindy, prepare a letter to all of our people, telling them that Bill will be accepting suggestions on the areas to be considered for regulation. Have them prepare a list of areas they believe should be regulated, with a brief description of what should and should not be regulated, and direct them to give their list to Bill.

“Bill, when you get the lists, add the areas to your survey form, if the area is not already identified. If you get two similar but slightly different areas identified, then list both of them. Don’t reword one of your current list items to cover both areas, for we may want to impose different levels of regulation on each of them. When everyone has had an opportunity to respond, we will meet again to review your consolidated list of things that need regulation. If everyone cannot agree on an appropriate level of regulation for a given area, I will define what we will do.

“Does anyone have anything further to say about this, before we move on to the next topic?”

No one indicated an interest in discussing the topic further, so we moved on to the next topic. Perhaps it was the look on my face. I was doing my best to project the emotions that said, I really don’t want to continue this discussion further at this time.

My wives thought they would be able to input their beliefs and opinions about driving, into the conversation. However, the conversation had gone in a different direction than they had expected, so they didn’t get to talk about their right to drive their own cars. Perhaps that had something to do with my telling Bill that he needed to keep today’s meeting at an overview level without getting mired down in discussing the regulation to be imposed on specified areas that needed regulation. He understood what would happen, if he allowed the meeting to address specific areas that needed regulation in detail. It turned out that the topic was a lot hotter than either of us expected it to be, even though we were able to limit discussion of the overall topic to a summary level. I guess my wives are going to give me an earful, this evening.

The next day, I stopped by Matt’s office.

“Matt, I was thinking of that Survey Form I tasked Bill with developing. He will print out paper copies of the form and then he will have to enter the responses from each form into some type of database. That’s going to be a lot of work, and we are still a fairly small group. It occurred to me that we will probably have other things that will need to be voted on in the future. It would be nice to have a computerized means of conducting such a survey or vote. If we used a chip reader to identify the person taking the survey or vote, they could enter their responses directly into a database. How do we go about having something like that created?”

“The first thing we need to do, Doug, is get a full-sized computer system installed. What we have now is all right for individual people, but we need a way to link our individual computers to something that has more processing power, and storage capacity. For that, you will need a department that specializes in computer support. We can set up an interim computer system here, but we will need even more capacity when we move into the new Embassy Compound.”

“Does that mean we will need to modify the new Embassy Compound to support the new system?”

“No, Doug. When William designed our facility, he knew we would need something like that, so he designed the Embassy building to allow for the installation of a full-sized computer system. All we need to do is get the equipment and the computer specialists to run it. William mentioned it during one of our design meetings and you told Cindy to add it to one of your lists. I think it was the list of things we need to do, before we move into the new compound.

“Oh. I guess there are too many lists with too many items. I don’t remember telling her that.”

“I don’t blame you. There is too much going on. I guess that’s why we need so many lists.”

“The second reason I stopped by to talk with you, Matt, was to discuss the subject of my wives driving their cars. Last night, I promised them I would set up a meeting with you, Bill, them, and me sometime today or tomorrow. Bill is available this afternoon at one o’clock. What are you doing then?”

Matt jokingly said, “It looks like I’ll be in a meeting with you, Boss.”

My wives decided Rita would be their spokesperson. I knew that meant she would handle the conversation, until one of the others had something they wanted to say. I suspected this was going to be a no-win conversation for me.

The meeting started with me putting my Ambassador hat on, and saying, “Bill, my wives would like clarification of what your policies will say about non-Embassy personnel driving their personal vehicles.”

Bill said, “Matt has been giving me some help in defining those policies, Doug. We haven’t gotten that far yet. When we get to that policy, one of the first things we will need to do is define what personal vehicle and Embassy personnel mean.”

Rita said, “That’s easy, Bill. If a vehicle is owned by an individual, it’s a personal vehicle. If the person is not an Embassy employee, then they are non-Embassy personnel.”

“No, Rita, it’s not that simple from a security point of view. As Doug’s wives, the four of you are not employed by the Embassy, but you have or you could be considered as having an informal position with the Embassy. When we get to developing that policy, I will probably categorize the people in the compound as being in one of five categories: Embassy Employee, Involved Personnel, Dependent, Tradesmen, and Visitors. In that structure, you and your co-wives will be categorized as Involved Personnel.

“Doug’s position as Ambassador means that the Embassy must provide the four of you with protection. You may not be aware of it, but your relationship with Doug means the four of you are targets for assassination and kidnapping. Therefore, your vehicles will probably need to be armored, which means the Embassy will have to provide you with vehicles, and you will also need personal bodyguards. I doubt it will be necessary, but we’ll also need to determine if you need bodyguards here, inside the compound. We will also need to consider if they are needed outside the compound, but still on the ranch. They will definitely be required when you leave the ranch.

“Due to your position as Doug’s wives, my people and I will be responsible for your safety. Protecting someone that doesn’t want protection is unpleasant and almost impossible, so that means you will need to cooperate with us for us to properly do our jobs.”

Before Rita could respond, Betty interrupted with, “That’s silly. I don’t need a bodyguard to go to the store and buy groceries.”

Shifting his attention to Betty, Bill said, “Betty, what you apparently don’t realize is when Doug presented his credentials, he became a person of interest to everyone on this planet. As his wives, the four of you are a means of controlling him; assuming of course someone upset with him can gain control of you. People will be upset with the five of you when they learn you are married to each other, and they will be exceptionally angry with Doug when they learn he owns you and Carol. His mission activities will anger others. He and the four of you are now targets for everyone that has a gripe with what he does as the Ambassador and with those who disagree with your personal lifestyle.

“That means the Embassy is obligated to protect you for as long as you are a member of Doug’s family. You will have at least one bodyguard with you, when you leave the ranch regardless of the Threat Level. The actual number will be determined by the Threat Level at the time you make your trip to the grocery store.

“Until we can look closer at the issue of your driving your vehicles, I am not going to commit to whether you can drive your vehicle on a specific day or the circumstances that will prevent you from driving. What I am considering is, if the Threat Level is ‘1’, then you can drive your vehicle if you want to, but at least one bodyguard is to go with you. If the Threat Level is ‘5’, then a bodyguard trained in Urban Warfare Driving will drive your vehicle, and you will have more than one bodyguard with you. I will need to determine who will be driving for Threat Levels 2, 3, and 4, and how many bodyguards you will need for those threat levels.”

I could see Rita and Betty getting ready to argue further. It seemed like Carol and Cindy would accept whatever Bill defined as Embassy policy. I could understand Carol’s attitude because of her submissive nature, but Cindy’s attitude puzzled me.

“Cindy, you don’t seem too upset with what Bill is saying. Is there a reason for that?”

“Well, I have been thinking about driving my own car, Doug. Most of the time I go somewhere, it’s with you. I suppose there will be times that I will want to go somewhere off of the ranch without you, but I don’t think that will happen very often due to the amount of time we spend together. I’m not sure it will be worth the effort necessary for me to learn how to drive a car. I’m here to support Betty, Carol, and Rita. They are going to be the ones who will need to go places without you, not me. So, I can see them needing to get a driver’s license. I can also understand what Bill is saying about security. I’m going to wait for Bill to define his policy and then I will decide if I disagree with his policy. Until then, I stand with my sister wives and will provide them with moral support.”

Rita said, “Cindy, I don’t believe you said that. What about what we discussed yesterday?”

“We need to think about what Bill just said, Rita. Yesterday was one thing. Today is another. Bill defined things we hadn’t considered, yesterday. It seems like we need to reassess our position based on what he said. Until we know exactly how restrictive his policy is going to be to us, I don’t think we should get too upset.

“Besides that, Doug, yesterday Bill told you that he wasn’t going to let you drive anywhere off of the ranch. I know you didn’t like hearing that, and I don’t blame you. If you think Bill’s policy for you is necessary, it’s hard for me to argue with him about us. It seems as if he is doing what he deems necessary for the situation. Perhaps the four of us need to know more about the situations that will affect us than we do now.”

I could see Cindy’s remarks had an effect on my other wives, so I said, “I think we need to table this topic until Bill has a draft policy written for this subject. We can address it then, if anyone feels it’s necessary. Any questions?”