-UNCLASSIFED-

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Event: Partnership for New York City Meeting

Type of event: Meeting

Date: August 7, 2003

Special Access Issues: Building passes from lobby of 1 Battery Park Plaza

Prepared by: Geoff Brown

Team Number: 8

Location: 1 Battery Park Plaza, 5th Floor

Participants - New York City Partnership:

1. Kathryn Wylde, President/CEO;

2. Ernest Tollerson, Senior Vice President (Research & Policy);

3. Patty Noonan, Vice President (Research & Policy); and

4. Brad Hoylman, Vice President (Communications)/Assistant General

Counsel.

Participants - Commission: Sam Caspersen and Geoff Brown

The Partnership for New York City [Partnership] represents the interests of the 200
largest private sector companies in New York City. The Partnership is heavily involved
in revitalization efforts for downtown New York, and operates as an advocate for NYC
economic and business interests.

The discussion began with a brief introduction of the 9/11 Commission: its formation, its
purpose, the task before Team 8 and specifically the subset role of the private sector
within Team 8's report.
Ernest Tollerson began to explain some of the Partnership's work related to 9/11,
including a post-mortem report on their 9/11 small business grant program and the
Partnership's analysis of the economic impact of 9/11 on New York City. .As these
issues do not bear directly on Team 8's mission, we steered the conversation in the
direction the New York City private sector entities and their approach to prevention of
and response to terrorist attacks.

Patty Noonan explained some of her work on the Partnership's Security and Risk
Management Task Force. She stated that communication between the private sector and
government security professionals needs to improve, and, as a positive example of
developing efforts, spoke about the development of the "Axis" electronic alert system.
Axis is an email alert system that works with the Mayor's Office of Emergency
Management in a city to continually update the security personnel of private companies
on pertinent security developments. Axis is in a pilot stage in Baltimore and Boston.
Kathryn Wylde stressed that the advantage of the Axis effort is it is potentially invaluable
not only as part of their first responder "response" tool kit, but also as a preventative
instrument by facilitating defensive dialogue between different security communities.

Noonan made the practical suggestion that every private sector company needs to provide
a list of crucial personnel to the NYPD so that in the event of a future attack of the
magnitude of 9/11, the crucial personnel can gain access to the company's building, even
if that area of the city is closed down to the public after the attack. [Compare with Am-Ex
meeting in James Creaghe noted that Am-Ex benefited in this regard because a good
number of its security force are ex-NYPD.]

We asked if they had read the Conference Board's analysis of the private sector's
organization and spending on security post 9/11. They said that they had, and agreed
with it the study's conclusion that companies in New York were more focused and more
willing to spend on security than prior to 9/11. Patty Noonan stated that some New York
companies were reorganizing their security divisions, were creating a higher level chief
security officer position and were hiring high profile individuals to fill these positions,
e.g., John Verone, former head the Secret Service, now chief security officer at CSFB.
Wylde agreed and noted that having a high level of federal security clearance was
considered a strong asset of a company's head of security. Wylde noted that it continues
to be a challenge for security executives to focus a company's senior management on the
urgency of security spending, especially during the difficult economic times of the last
two years.
Wylde defended the improvements made by NYC building owners towards security, in
contrast to other cities, where she said owners are having an extremely difficult time
implementing the same level of security reform they have created in their NYC properties
[consistent with Conference Board Study]. She noted that owners encounter resistance
from tenants to accept the inconvenience and cost of higher security in areas that have a
low public perception of threat [compare with Am-Ex meeting, where James Creaghe and
Hannah Sesay stated that even in New York it is much more difficult to plan for building
crises in buildings with different tenants].

We requested that the Partnership consider conducting an anonymous survey of its 200
members in order to compare their respective security practices and how they have
changed since 9/11. We emphasized that as the survey would be anonymous, we
obviously would not be pointing fingers or criticizing, but only trying to discern best
practices and determine what percentage of the 200 companies were approaching best
practices. Kathryn Wylde was cautious about a survey of all 200 companies, but was
confident that they could at least provide a few case studes. Patty Noonan requested that
we send her a draft list of survey questions.

We then turned to the issue of the Federal Government's - the Department of Homeland
Security in particular - funding of local governments' terrorism prevention and response
programs. We complimented Wylde on her recent trip to Washington D.C., in which she
and executives from major New York companies lobbied Congress of the short comings
of a status quo in which Wyoming receives far more money, per capital, than New York
State, considering Islamic terrorists' continued focus on attacking New York. Wylde said
that she has been told that 95% of terrorism warnings in the United States are focused on
New York. We noted that the Commission could issue interim reports with policy
recommendations and that this was an issue of great concern to the Commission. Wylde
left us with the somewhat vague impression that the funding allocation situation was
improving. [We need to follow up here, as could be a good carrot to encourage
cooperation from NYC.]

Finally we turned to the issue of terrorism and insurance Wylde noted that private
companies' insurance premiums decreased if they employed certified security guards.
She mentioned that such a provision is being examined by the Maintenance and Security
Union. We indicated that the issue of insurance was one which we would want to
address in the survey.
Wylde discussed the insurance litigation surrounding Deutsche Bank's Liberty 130
building, which was so damaged in the 9/11 attacks and during the subsequent months,
when its internal rooms were exposed to the elements. Deutsche Bank thinks 130 Liberty
should be torn down and a new building built, to be paid by its insurer. The insurer
believes that the building could be repaired [at considerably less expense], and the issue
is in litigation [We have articles on this issue].

Wylde noted that both insurers and insured are not satisfied with how insurance pools are
developing with regard to terrorism policies. Property owners in New York find
themselves forced into policies only with other Manhattan buildings, and thus are the
equivalent of a health insurance pool whose members all are 3 pack a day smokers and
thus face much higher rates. From the insurer's perspective it is very difficult to quantify
the risk of a terrorist attack, Wylde called this current situation entirely unsatisfactory.
We asked what the impact of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002's impact on the
Partnership's members, and Wylde said it is too early to say. [As Emily and I have
discussed, we need to determine to what extent we focus on the issue of
terrorism/insurance.]

As private insurance litigation is likely in the event of future terrorist attacks, Wylde
made the practical suggestion that a systemic arbitration process be created in advance.

The Partnership encouraged the Commission to form practical and applicable policy
recommendations, and is willing to cooperate with the NYC office on projects including:

1. An anonymous survey of the security executives from the corporations the

Partnership represents, the template for which will be initially created by this
office;

2. Possible co-sponsored roundtable events with those security executives;

and

3. Information sharing from upcoming Partnership reports.

The following were recommended to be contacted:

1. Edward Miller (Axis;

2. BENS - Business Executives for National Security;
3. John Verone (CSFB);
4. Bob Littlejon (Avon);
 5. ESMA (the Mecklenburg Emergency Medical Services Agency); and
6. The International Property Owners Association (IPO).

DRAFT 08/14/03

Follow Up:

Prepare draft questionnaire and send to Peggy Noonan and continue dialogue with
Peggy and Partnership
Get up to speed on insurance issue and determine how to proceed
Get up to speed on current status of DHS's allocation of grants to different
localities

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

COMMISSION SENSITIVE