Update: Tri-Cities transit CEO paid $22K for armed security to watch employees
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- CEO hired armed guards in Dec. 2025 to monitor potentially disruptive employees.
- CEO on paid leave while outside firm investigates spending; board to get report.
- Documents contradict CEO claims that security was for systemwide rollout.
Newly released records show that Ben Franklin Transit’s CEO spent more than $20,000 for armed security to monitor transit employees.
The records also reinforce that Thomas Drozt likely misled the public and BFT board of directors about the purpose of hiring armed security. The new records back up what Richland police and dispatchers wrote after transit managers called the cops on employees and on a union representative six times in the week around a December 2025 board meeting.
Despite Drozt telling the transit board that the newly-hired armed security officers were only at the board meeting as part of a multi-phase, systemwide rollout, the records show they were hired to monitor employees planning to protest at a meeting and then to stay at the agency’s headquarters for the next month to monitor any “activity that could be considered disruptive or destructive.”
There were no specific safety concerns listed beyond potentially disruptive employees and looking out for vandalism. No direction was given on how security officers might be expected to help transit staff with unruly passengers or other issues.
Drivers have since expressed frustration that the officers are not available for safety escorts at the office in the Richland “Y” area to the parking lot across the street in the early morning hours or after bus service ends for the day.
Drozt told the Herald in an email that the records do not reflect the full scope of conversations with the security agency, and that he followed all applicable agency policies.
“The use of security was part of a planned, phased approach that had been under development for several months to enhance safety across the system,” Drozt said. “The timeline was accelerated to support public meetings during a period of heightened tension, with the goal of maintaining a safe and orderly environment for all participants. The presence of security at such meetings was not without precedent.”
Drozt has been on voluntary paid administrative leave since the beginning of February, while an outside law firm investigates allegations about some of his spending.
Ben Franklin Transit’s board of directors are expected to receive a report on the investigation at their next board meeting. The meeting is set for 6 p.m. on April 9, at 1000 Columbia Park Trail. It can also be watched online via Zoom.
“I respect the review process currently underway and remain available to participate as needed,” Drozt said. “I stand by the intent behind the decisions made and believe it is important that all matters be understood based on the complete set of facts.”
Security to watch employees
A December 10 email shows that staff weren’t sure what budget pool to assign the bill for the security services to since the officers were being requested on short notice. It was initially paid out under the executive office, with a note that it should probably be changed to be paid in the future from either the safety and security or operations budgets.
“Tom requested security guard services for tomorrow’s Board meeting and then continue starting on Monday the 15th, Monday through Friday for a month,” a transit employee wrote.
The cost for the two guards at the Dec. 11 meeting was $525, and $5,390 per week for monitoring the office from 5 a.m. to 7 p.m.
The estimated total cost was about $22,000. An estimate from earlier in the week was also included, initially asking for one guard to be at the meeting and to monitor the facility for a month after.
The guards were instructed to escort potentially disruptive employees out of the room at the request of board members.
Calls made to Richland Police Department show that a member of the agency’s management team told a dispatcher that security was hired for the meeting in December when requesting additional police presence to work with the security officers.
It was one of the six calls that week made to police about transit employees.
No long-term plan
Correspondence from Phoenix Protective Corp. mentions no planned rollout beyond security officers continuing to monitor headquarters when Drozt hired them in December.
They did not formally discuss any expansion of security services until January, with no discussion about what an expansion might look until February when Drozt was already on paid leave.
No records showing that an eventual rollout was planned or discussed in December have been released, and the agency’s records clerk told the Tri-City Herald all records related to security contracts were given to the Herald
The officers were moved to also serving transit hubs and riding buses after complaints from drivers and members of the public led to the board to directing interim CEO Brian Lubanski in January to present them with a formal security plan.
The officers are now only armed with non-lethal weapons when on buses. They carried guns when monitoring employees.
The first mention of expanding security is a Jan. 7 email exchange.
“BFT is planning on extending the agreement and adding (additional) security services. Staff is finalizing plans for phase 2 of the security improvements,“ a transit employee wrote to Phoenix Protective.
On Jan. 29, their contract to monitor the headquarters was extended through 2027, with only a mention of “future locations as requested.”
A plan for adding officers to bus routes was sent to Phoenix on Feb. 18 and the transit agency received a quote for expanding beyond its main office in a Feb. 23 letter.
It’s unclear how much the renewal will cost, but emails show that transit staff asked Phoenix to shorten the length of the contract through June 30 to keep the amount under $250,000.
“Can you change the end dates to June 30th, 2026, on page 2. The first of June BFT staff can reevaluate and renew or modify as needed. The interim CEO only has signing authority up to $250,000,” a transit manager wrote.
Lubanski did not respond to a Herald request for clarification on why the board and public were told something different than what the documents show.
Calling cops on employees, union reps
The “disruptive” behavior of employees was detailed in police and dispatch reports, obtained by the Herald under the Washington Public Records Act.
Three of the calls were related to attempts to trespass union representative Russell Shjerven from the building. Shjerven told the Herald he was surrounded by management staff and confronted after putting a printout on an employee bulletin board of what was allegedly Drozt’s “burner” Facebook account, which used a fake name.
When he came back later to speak to employees, he was again surrounded and confronted, Shjerven said.
His key card access to the building also was revoked, which he believes is a violation of a previous Superior Court order guaranteeing his access to union employees. The employees were in the middle of collective bargaining.
Two calls to Richland police were related to a former employee allegedly spitting on a car after a confrontation with Drozt and another manager at the December meeting. He left the meeting on his own, but was followed out by security officers.
Richland police told transit managers that the former employee did not commit a crime.
They told the officer that they just wanted the incident documented because the former employee had filed a grievance. However, Shjerven told the Herald in January that he was not aware of those calls to Richland police, despite the union being engaged in arbitration for that employee.
Ben Franklin Transit denied that police were called related to the confrontation at the meeting, claiming the call was for vandalism after the Herald reported on the call logs from dispatchers and notes from officers.
That former employee has since been banned for a year from attending the agency’s meeting, after the manager whose car he allegedly spit on asked for a protection order, according to a discussion and vote by the board at its February meeting.
The former employee can still watch the meeting online and submit comments in writing.
This story was originally published March 30, 2026 at 1:32 PM.
