Monday, December 17, 2007
Administration Center
Room 3220
11:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chief Edward Kondracki, Chief Gregg Cleveland, Chief Don Dominick, Vicki Burke, Bruce Ranis, Dr. Eric Voter, Sheriff Steve Helgeson, Steve O’Malley, Chief Scott Alo, Randy Roeck
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
MEMBERS ABSENT: Interim Chief Tim Hauser
OTHERS PRESENT: Jay Loeffler, Patti McDonah, Assistant Chief Randy Loken, Ann
Willford, Assistant Chief Tom Jacobs, Jim Klock, Al Blencoe, Matt Zavadsky, Mayor Mark Johnsrud, Donn Martin, Krista Gallager, Steve Doyle, Bill Shepherd, Jay Clark.
CALL TO ORDER:
Committee Chair Chief Kondracki called the meeting to order at 11:10
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
MOTION by Ranis/Burk to approve meeting minutes of November 26, 2007. Motion carried unanimously.
EMD ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE – FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Hand out of Agreement.
Chief Kondracki opened by reminding everyone that in September of this year, a sub-committee was created with a broad representation of the involved parties and that they met and are presenting this board with a policy that could be followed. Given the number of e-mails which have been going back and forth, they are very close to achieving that agreement. Chief Kondracki commended all the members and co-chairs of the committee for all their effort. There was some mediation engaged and we are actually asking the County, City, Tri-State Ambulance and the Hospital to enter into an agreement. This is a unique set of parties, public and private, and following mediation there were six suggestions to be followed. (Everyone was given a copy.) These points are also contained in the recitals at the beginning of the proposed agreement. Chief Kondracki said as the agreement is discussed, everything needs to be consistent with the six points. In the beginning there were some concerns articulated by the fire that the high level of response protocol that currently exists in La Crosse County not be lost. Unfortunately it looked like the police and fire are some “good old boys” who are trying to protect some kind of turf. In the end we all have one thing in mind, which is providing the best service for the community and we are all very supportive of that concept. Chief Kondracki pointed out there are two Co-Chairs and he asked that they start going over the agreement.
Jay started with the document created as a result of the Friday, December 14, 2007 meeting and focused on the 6 guidelines and where they are addressed in the agreement. Starting with page 3, 2.1 (a) addressed guideline #1. Page 3, 2.2 (b) addresses guideline #2. As of this agreement there was wording changes made in 2.2 (b) which are underlined. Chief Kondracki said he understood that as of the most recent meeting at 10:00 a.m. that morning an agreement was reached and the language lined out in the green sheet was acceptable to the committee and still maintained the intent of the policy. Jay said he agreed.
Chief Kondracki said he felt the language “lined out” was a little ambiguous and almost in conflict with the beginning and wondered if, to move on, the board should approve the language now and then take this item by item. Steve O’Malley said he respectfully disagreed and the fact that things have been flying back and forth, are we done or are there things people disagree on. He said he knew there was a meeting that morning and wondered if everything was agreed upon or are they still looking for recommendations. Chief Kondracki said he understood that some committee members may have further discussion but is hearing the committee at least agreeing this language should be omitted. If this is the case he said the committee should approve it and move on to the next issue so in the end we can get this document approved. Steve O’Malley said if there are still outstanding issues he would like to keep hearing the report and know what’s going on. Chief Kondracki said his concern is that in order to move the meeting ahead, approving the issues as they come up and then looking over the overall report would get this accomplished rather than discuss and go back and re-discuss. We have issues we all agree on so let’s agree and move forward. With that in mind it is the desire of the Chair that we proceed in that fashion and since I don’t hear any objection he would look for a motion from the board to approve this language as is presented by the committee. Steve asked that we do this fairly item by item. Chief Kondracki said he didn’t think there were many items remaining and we should move forward in an expeditious fashion. Steve said he would like to hear where we’re at, if we’re done or if there are six issues in which we are voting on. Steve said we stopped after two paragraphs and wasn’t clear what was being voted so he would like to hear the committee’s report before we start voting on things. He said he was brought into a meeting Friday, e-mails are flying back and forth today and the committee met this morning and he would like to know where things are before we have to vote. Steve said he didn’t think that was unreasonable and he will vote against motions until we hear the whole thing. Chief Kondracki said he would like to exercise the authority of the Chair of this committee and attempt to wade through this to get it approved. All parties are here, no-one is objecting, at which time Steve objected, Chief Kondracki asked that the record reflect that the chair rules Steve’s objection out of order since he is trying to set the pace for the ability to reach consensus. Vickie Burke interjected that she feels what Steve is asking is reasonable and we should know where we stand with the entire contract. If there are still conflicts involved we should take each individual item and vote on them to see where we are and work on the things that are causing the conflict.
Chief Cleveland said he felt the point that was made this morning was the fact that there was an agreement on this particular issue and the language of 2.2 (b) that has been provided, which is struck is acceptable to GL. It was their suggestion and they could live with it and it would be an acceptable piece. Chief Kondracki said his only goal is that we can move ahead and are very close to consensus. Let’s agree to it and in the end having met the needs of all the parties he would like to move forward. Chief Kondracki said this is the ruling of the Chair and asked the committee to consider this changed language so we can move on and asked, as parliamentary procedure, there be a motion and move on to the next item. The entire document is not in contention and as an example, we can say grace over the recitals without a lot of discussion and now we’re on to the first issue Jay brings up. I am very pleased the sub-committee has reached consensus on this and would ask that the board consider and not nit- pick our way through this and rather be guided in a large part by what the sub-committee has already recommended.
Motion by Kondracki to approve the Language of the agreement.
Dr. Voter moved there be discussion after the presentation by Jay and there be no nit-picking but rather go over the entire document first. Chief Kondracki said the Chair did make a ruling and Roberts Rules suggests that the board, by vote, has to overrule the Chairs decision on this.
Motions by Burke/Voter to listen the entire document before any decisions are made on the document. Motion was discussed.
Chief Kondracki asked what the desire of the board was. Chief Cleveland said on this particular issue he understands what Steve is saying but thought this was an issue that was agreed upon by Jim Klock at the meeting prior this. There are issues that will be disagreed upon and those issues will come out and he doesn’t understand, if both parties are in agreement, why we can’t approve it and move one. Steve said he doesn’t know why we can’t just hear the report and find out where we’re at. Chief Kondracki said he doesn’t want this to degrade and become argumentative and seems logical to him logical to move ahead instead of going over each item and go back again. He asked if everyone understands what’s before the board and that the entire report will be gone over and then come back to see where it stands.
Chief Kondracki asked to vote on the motion. There were 4 apposed and 5 in favor. Chief Roeck abstained the first vote and when voted again, voted apposed. Motion divided 5 to 5.
Chief Kondracki said in order to overrule the ruling of the Chair there had to be a majority and there is no such majority so he would ask the board whether or not they want to accept this language.
Motion by Cleveland/Dominick to accept the language of item 2.2 (b) and deletion of wording lined out. Chief Kondracki asked to vote on the motion. Motion divided 5 to 5.
Steve Doyle interjected that he feels what Steve O’Malley is trying to do is have cursory overview to get to the end and under parliamentary procedure someone would move to approve the entire document. From there, if someone didn’t like a particular item, they would say they moved to change that particular item and you wouldn’t go back over each and every item and only debating the things people may have problems with. Jay could run quite quickly through what the committee decided this morning. You would get the whole item on the floor and then focus on only the one or two things people disagreed on and wouldn’t need to go back over each and every item. Chief Kondracki said Steve Doyle brings up a good point but is disappointed this couldn’t move forward more quickly. If this process is not going to work, the Chair amends its earlier decision and we will go over the entire thing.
Jay conveyed what was discussed was to go through the guidelines where they are pointed out in the agreement and hopefully some of the committee members would be able to speak as to where there concerns are. This document is not totally agreed upon and actually the majority of the members have only seen this document as of this morning because most of these changes came out over the weekend. Chief Kondracki asked Jay to proceed. Chief Cleveland said he was confused as to where he was starting because there is not an agreement on the recitals and is confused as to how this will be gone though. Jay said his intent was to go through the six guidelines that were assigned and show where they pertain for the board, not necessarily for the board to make the decision if we are following the guidelines. Chief Cleveland asked again that Jay continue. Jay went over #1 of the guideline pointing out it was addressed in Article III, number 3.1. and also again in Article V 5.1.
Mayor Johnsrud advised that it would be simpler to go over the green document page by page and rather than try to determine how it follows the guidelines on the white sheet. There has been discussion since the white sheet was developed with the City and sub-committee and would be better to go through the green document and determine where there are possible changes, discuss those changes, make a motion to approve the document and then discuss the changes that need to be approved and vote it up or down. Steve Doyle said Mayor makes a good point and said Jay should go through the green document. If someone says there is something in the green document they want to change they can make a motion after the motion has been made by the board to approve the document.
Chief Kondracki said it goes without saying that the six guidelines are addressed in one way or another in the document and that it is getting confusing to jump back and forth so if Jay could walk through the green document and tell the board what it is we are trying to accomplish we can go back and see if there are any individual objections. Steve Doyle suggested someone make a motion to put it on the floor and from there anyone can add amendments if they want.
Jay said the first item underlined is Definitions, page 3, item 1.4. “Records” has been amended from the document received 1/14/07. Chief Kondracki asked if the committee is in agreement of the wording as it stands. Jay said the committee did agree to this at the meeting this morning. Bill Shepherd instructed that as Corporation Counsel of the County he has concerns regarding the definition being overly broad. No matter if there is an agreement between the parties, some information cannot be provided due to the HIPAA privacy protections and also the confidentiality of patient healthcare records according to Wisconsin statutes. He suggested there be some language added. It was agreed adding pursuant to section 9.5.
Jim Klock said he felt there should also be reference made to the provisions in Article V 5.2.
Mayor Johnsrud conveyed the City has had a problem with the language “mutually agreed upon” by parties, and feels there should be transparency within the document that records being provided to the general public with regards to providing pre-arrival instructions. This is new in that La Crosse County is doing something none of the other counties is doing. They are allowing a private sector provider to provide pre-arrival instructions and we want to make sure there is transparency with regard to the records that are being provided between La Crosse County and Gundersen Lutheran and to this body to insure that those pre-arrival instructions and certainly prioritization of calls by Tri-State is transparent and there is a general understanding. Mayor Johnsrud said, between the City of La Crosse and the City of Onalaska, we provide ¾ of the calls within La Crosse County and we certainly want to make sure our people are getting the highest and best quality of care and the highest quality of response and the way to do that is to insure that the records are available for this board.
Chief Kondracki said when we talk about the parties, we are talking about the County and Gundersen Lutheran and what is the role of the Governing Board if the two parties agree to something. Does the Governing Board continue some sort of oversight to determine what is happening is in the best interest of the community. Shouldn’t we allow this board to exercise that kind of oversight which is the intent of this board to begin with. Could we also add our board to the parties so we continue to exercise the oversight we were interested in from the beginning?
Chief Cleveland said this was one of the areas the committee disagreed on and he thinks it’s accurate that what Mayor Johnsrud is saying is that from their perspective, we have a private entity now dealing with the private sector. To a large part their records are public records and obviously if there is a request for public information or a request for records, they have to provide them unless it conflicts with any law. What role the Governing Board plays with this issue was an area of disagreement. For example; if the Governing Board wants such records and the County doesn’t agree to it, the records aren’t produced. How do we meld that so the direction of the Governing Board is reflected. If there is something that the Governing Board wants to look at and Gundersen and the County don’t agree on it, then we don’t get access to the records. This is one of the reasons there is a public records definition in 1.4. The intent is not to have people not comply with HIPAA or the confidentiality but the intent is that this information is public record, so whether this board or anyone else wants to have access to it, they can.
Matt Zavadsky advised that Tri-State and Gundersen wants to give everyone as much information as the guidelines allow and that is not an issue. The issue from their perspective is it falls under two basic principals. One is, the very original six points that were agreed upon and then brought to this board states in item #6 is a mutually agreed upon format and frequency. The concern is that administratively, it could become very burdensome if the Communications Board decides they want daily, weekly or monthly reports. The language of #6 in the original agreement, allows them to say every meeting, every two months or every month, which is ok, but everyday is not ok. Really the issue comes down to the format and frequency and to discuss and agree upon what is the format and frequency.
Mayor Johnsrud said he thinks the City would allow them to change the sentence from “mutually agreed upon by the parties” to include “in regard to format and frequency” in 5.1.
Chief Kondracki said from the boards perspective of item #3, the Governing Board will serve as implementation team to supervise the process and monitor what is going on and wants to make sure this is not lost somehow. Given what was agreed upon, we will take note of it if we are not willing to take action on this at this time, even though it appears there is a consensus.
Steve Doyle said you should have someone make a motion to approve the document and then make amendments as you go along.
Chief Kondracki said the proposal is that we approve the document as is and go along and vote on individual items that require additional discussion.
Motion by Burk/O’Malley was made to approve the agreement of pre-arrival medical dispatch as it is presented to the Board.
Chief Cleveland conveyed opposite to what Steve was saying, we want to hear all the issues before we approve the document and now we’re in the process of approving the document. With all due respect, let’s continue to go back and hear what the issues are, identify them, deal with them and then make an agreement to move the document.
Steve O’Malley said he wanted to find out if everyone agreed to the sentence inserted after mutually agreed upon because we’re making new amendments based on the Mayors latest suggestion. Steve said he didn’t know what was so hard to agree on of what the committee’s talked about, or are there new issues outstanding. All we want to do is find out what the status is.
Chief Cleveland said if we go through the document as suggested first without making motions to approve the document we will get exactly what we want. The Board will understand where the differences lie and the board can take action on whatever it needs to. That is where it started and that is the route the committee should continue to take.
Chief Kondracki advised there is a motion of the floor to approve the document and move along and amend it. Steve Doyle said the only reason he suggested what he did was that is sounded like Bill’s suggestion was more technical and no-one would have disagreement over it anyway. Everyone is going to say yes to the language Bill is talking about so the items that are disagreed upon can be held to the end but the items that are purely technical or legal can be gotten out of the way.
Chief Kondracki said he felt the majority of the issues are semantics and there isn’t a substitutive conflict here at all and we need to get beyond this. One format is just as applicable as the other and what is in front of us is basically what the Chair had hoped to do almost an hour ago.
Chief Cleveland said he didn’t think it was necessary to approve a document because if these issues can’t be resolved the document goes through as approved when he would rather deal with the issues up front as Mr. O’Malley first suggested. Vicki Burke said what Mr. Doyle is suggesting now is that during the discussion we make any changes to the document and we don’t vote on approving the whole document. During the discussion we make those changes and at the end we vote the entire document. Chief Kondracki said he wasn’t sure that is what the motion was. Vicki said the motion is to accept the document and anyone who wishes to make those changes will make it during the discussion of whether or not to accept the document. Steve O’Malley said, to clarify the motion, whether each individual party agrees to every edit in the document is what’s on the floor. So we’re not confused, it is as edited, so at the end, we will adopt the changes we have made. Chief Kondracki concurred that the green document does include the input from the parties with some fine tuning still being required. Steve O’Malley said for example; the issue we spent a lot of time talking about, which is struck through, is on the floor and we go back to the places where there are edits to make or eliminate what it is.
Chief Cleveland said if an issue can’t be resolved and goes to a tie and cannot be resolved, then we will have to accept this document. Chief Kondracki asked that Vicki articulate the motion again. Vicki placed on the floor the motion to accept this document as it is presented to the Board. Steve Doyle suggested Vicki make a motion to adopt Corporation Councils change because everyone has agreed on it. Bill said in 1.4, pursuant to section 5.2 accept for records subject to HIPAA privacy protection in section 9.5.
Motion by Burke/O’Malley to amend the document placed on the floor. Carried unanimously.
Jay continued with 1.5, the definition of Medical oversight. Dr. Voter questioned this and also 5.3. Steve Doyle said, Emergency Medical Services is another document and is all controlled somewhere else. This document has nothing to do with that and is the only reason it is in here.
Jay moved on to item 2.2 (b) and pointed out it was discussed earlier and moved on to 2.2 (f) the words initial and dispatch were struck out. Going on to page 5, Article IV 4.2 After the first nine months, the Communications Board shall provide recommendations to the County Board on Pre-Arrival Medical Dispatch Instruction Services, was added. Chief Cleveland said this was an area of discussion. There was no general definition of what Sunset meant, although it certainly means to stop. The intent was not that the Governing Board stops this, but there be a mechanism of a process that the program is evaluated and can make meaningful changes to improve it. This is still a concern and it comes back to the issue of, how does the roll and oversight of the board go with regard to the issue of the County and who is this agreement between.
Chief Kondracki said, as he mentioned earlier, he is concerned that this document reflect the 3rd agreed upon mediation which was the Governing Board supervise the process, monitory and implementation. Couldn’t this be accomplished if it was said that either party provides at least 60 days written notice prior to the end of the current term. Could we add the Governing Board to this. Bill Shepherd pointed out the official name of this board is Communications Board according to the By Laws. Chief Kondracki said what is being said is if either party is concerned about the automatic renewal they are supposed to provide the Communications Board with a 60 day notice, but if either party is perfectly happy with the way it is going, but the Communications Board has concerns, how do we bring this to the forefront. Steve O’Malley said this was the purpose of the last sentence. Chief Kondracki asked if this subsection allows the Communications Board to bring it to the forefront or does one of the parties have to. Steve advised that the County Board still has the budgetary and day to day scheduling authority. The Communications Board cannot make budgetary change, working condition or union conditions. If the Communications Board does not want to continue what the practice is, this says that at the end of nine months you make specific recommendations and says there is responsibility by the Communication Board to recommend that. Chief Kondracki asked what language allows this. Steve said the last sentence of the paragraph. This was inserted at Friday night’s meeting and what the City wanted. Chief Cleveland said the question that remains is the fact that what role does the Communications Board play in terms of authority over the day to day operations of what’s going on. For example: the board wants to make changes to the program, do we have any say to what’s going on. Steve Doyle interjected it is a fact, there could be a recommendation that could be ignored which is a fact of life but the Board is not a party to the contract. If this board votes no at the end of the day, it would not stop the County from entering into this contract with Tri-State. This is a recommendation on a particular topic to the County Board who certainly wants to hear the recommendations and abide by them, but when push comes to shove, the fact of the matter is, this board is not a party to this contract. Steve O’Malley noted the board does not have levy authority, does not represent the employer and can’t commit the county to something that is outside the authority of the Communications Board and that hasn’t been a change. Steve Doyle said he agrees with the last sentence and it was a good addition. Chief Kondracki said he is concerned the board is represented in a large part by police and fire and if the respected police fire folk are deluged with complaints from citizens and for some reason the agreement is not working, what is the intent of oversight if this board feels strongly that public safety is suffering as result of this agreement and can only make recommendations what happens. Steve O’Malley said it is no different than the entire history of this board. The County Board still has to make the final authority and are the ones that are liable for the decisions made day to day, 24 – 7, not based on a board that meets quarterly. The County Board does labor negotiations, scheduling and makes budgetary decisions and this Communications Board does not have that authority. We will certainly listen to, involve and respond to anything the Communications Board has, however this body has never had authority over budgetary or contractual relationships the County is entered in. The Communications Board has oversight but doesn’t have authority. Chief Kondracki asked if it is possible to have oversight without authority because it violates the principle of delegation. Steve reiterated, this is an advisory board and the County Board has the final decision on the operations of the Public Safety Communications Board. This body has never had levy authority or entered into a labor contract.
Steve Doyle said a good example is if the concern of the people was that GL should not dispatch and rather the County should and we need staff and equipment added so we can have someone doing this and pass resolution, this body saying no would violate the constitution. You could not tell a governmental entity of the State of WI they must do something because you don’t have the levy authority. You have to make recommendations but can’t say, this must happen. Chief Cleveland said the issue he’s concerned about is if they want changes made in the EMD we don’t have that authority in terms of the process. He said after reflecting on it over the weekend the issue is moot if we don’t have the ability to say we want changes made in the program. Steve O’Malley said if the issue was moot, we wouldn’t be here.
Chief Kondracki said, at the end of the contract, should the board have the opportunity to sit down and decide if changes should be made and are we making a recommendation to the County Board or are we voting on what we are going to do. Steve O’Malley said the contract is between GL and the County. Chief Kondracki said this board does have input into the contract and we are not making a recommendation to the County Board, we are in fact modifying the contract that is going to be entered into. Steve said this is a contract between La Crosse County and GL and will rely on Corporation Council. The Communications Board is not a contractual entity. Chief Kondracki asked why, when this comes up for approval again, can the Board only make recommendations. Chief Dominick said this was one of the major difficulties the sub-committee had. When we were notified to the fact that it was only an advisory capacity #3 was the toughest to satisfy. Chief Kondracki said it seems logical this is an issue. Chief Cleveland said what needs to be done to get us where we all want to be is that we look at the authority as a separate issue. In other words the Governing Board can make changes to the program from Gundersen, which is a separate issue. We need to put it in as operational control and this board governs the pre-arrival instruction provided.
Bill Shepherd said you have to go back to the By Laws which is the document established when this board was created. It says resolve impasses, make recommendations to the Judiciary and Law committee, coordinate to the extent possible or necessary and serve as an advisory capacity. By the By Laws it sets for the authority this body has and Steve O’Malley and Steve Doyle are accurate in terms of the extent of the boards authority. The language suggested in 4.2 carries the intent of the By Laws that the Board operates under. You have heard very clearly from Steve the things you cannot do. Chief Kondracki asked if what the board is doing now is in violation of their own By Law. Bill said not at all and the document the majority of the board can agree upon will be the recommendation of the board that will go to the County Board. Assuming this board can provide the County Board with a document it can live with, they will accept the recommendations but if you try to impact those impermissible areas, the County Board wouldn’t accept it. Chief Kondracki conveyed from what he is hearing from all the parties is, what is going on today take place a year from now and if this board has problems with what is being agreed upon today, it is not just the parties that can carry on despite the objections of this board. Bill said what is underlined in 4.2 is the board’s opportunity after the first 9 months to make recommendations to the County Board of any problems with the service. Chief Kondracki asked if by theory all agreements must be approved by the County Board, so can we for the sake of making everyone comfortable, change the terminology as it pertains to, shall provide recommendations. Steve O’Malley said if you want to change something it’s not saying to just review it, it’s saying to tell us what you want to do. If we increase the level of service to add EMD we’re not going to go backwards. Chief Cleveland said whether we provide pre-arrival instructions or not is different than making changes in the program. Whether the program continues is up to the county but in terms of not making recommendations, is where this board has operational oversight to change pre-arrival instructions and to separate the two make it’s clearer in the document. If your concerned that we are going to say no to EMD, that is the decision by the county but if the board wants to change and improve or do something with the pre-arrival instruction program, we have the authority to do that and it shouldn’t be lumped into a recommendation to the County Board. Steve O’Malley said, ultimately it is because it has hour, operation, terms of employment or budgetary authority it always is a recommendation. No more or less than is being done right now. Chief Kondracki said it’s a matter of semantics and could we make some subtle word changes to put this more in everyones comfort zone. Steve O’Malley said the concern is that this document not be interpreted to change the authority the board has as recommending body. Chief Cleveland said the concern that arose Friday night is the fact there is a difference between recommending a program to the county but if we want to make changes in the way that are none financial just need to be clarified. Steve O’Malley said it is still a recommendation as it is still related to hours of working. Chief Kondracki suggested to articulate it to reflect what we’re doing here today. Steve suggested the language is fine and wondered what new language is being proposed because we’re talking around in circles. Chief Cleveland suggested adding operational concerns or operational issues directly related to the provision of EMD or pre-arrival instructions shall remain under the purview of the Communications Board. Steve O’Malley said those words actually raise more questions as the board does not have that authority now. Vicki Burke advised the language says exactly what the committee is allowed to do. The fact of the matter is, after the first nine months the Communications Board will be getting information about what is happening so will have the opportunity to provide any recommendations the board sees fit. The language does include that, and it seems to be picking over something that isn’t necessary because obviously the County Board is not going to ignore a deluge of complaints about what is happening. As an elected official we will not disregard complaints. Chief Kondracki said we should move on to the next issue and we can always return to this.
Jay continued with the next issue under 5.1. Chief Kondracki asked if the item was agreed upon and it was. Chief Cleveland asked there be a modification of adding, in a frequency determined by the board. Bill suggested to add in regard to format and frequency in 5.1 and also again in 5.2.
Motion by O’Malley/Burke to add, in regard to format and frequency in 5.1 and in 5.2. Motion carried unanimously.
Jay reported this was the last change proposed as of the Friday, 12/14/07 meeting. Chief Kondracki asked if there were any disagreements or concerns to the recitals. Chief Cleveland said the wording of the guidelines should be put in the recitals as verbatim. The words initial and dispatch completely modify the proposal in #6. The guidelines should be listed exactly as they are listed. Chief Kondracki asked if these were intentional changes to what was agreed upon. Jay said the changes were made mainly because in some of it, Tri-State and Gundersen Lutheran were used interchangeably and there was some opposition to that because Tri-State and GL are separate agencies. Steve O’Malley said the issue is that Gundersen Lutheran is actually the entity providing the pre-arrival instruction, not Tri-State. While this reflects our intent, it is not what the actual contract has to state and the WHEREAS clause on page 2 covers this. Matt Zavadsky said looking at what the Communications Board recommended versus what was included in the agreement was based on what is legal and what the parties are able to enter into in a contract. The concern is, if we really want to be strict, the record keeping, that we agreed to in mediation is much different in the current agreement. We have agreed to adopt that so we could get this valuable service available to the community and the people having issues over very semantic minor issues need to get over those as well so we can move forward. Chief Cleveland said #6 is significantly different on the white paper. Chief Kondracki asked if he was suggesting Tri-State and Gundersen Lutheran both need to be involved. Chief Cleveland said the words “initial” and “dispatch” were added and not originally on the green sheet. Steve O’Malley pointed out we have already addressed this and we also expanded, at the Chief’s request, the definition of records and anything and everything anyone could expect. Chief Cleveland suggested changing #6 so it’s consistent.
Motion by Cleveland/Dominick to strike the words “initial” and “dispatch” from #6 in the document to be consistent. Motion carried unanimously.
Chief Kondracki said going back to 4.2 is the term of “recommendations” to the County Board and understands there cannot be fiscal or labor relations impact and in reality, this agreement is a recommendation to the County Board but does not understand why the language cannot be modified because he thought there were more than recommendations being made. I can understand why the committee struggled with item #3. We all agreed to the fact this board would supervise the implementation and monitoring and this goes directly to monitoring and it would seem this language could be changed. Philosophically Chief Kondracki said he would like to see it reflect what is being done today because he never perceived what was being done was to come up with recommendations but rather a contract that reflected the best interest of the community so would someone budge on this issue so we can move one. Steve O’Malley said there is not a legal entity that commits the County to liability in a contract. This has always been a recommending body and the County is the one liable for a contract, has liability insurance, union contracts and employees and to perpetuate the discussion of 4.2 is to approve authority this body has never had. Chief Kondracki asked if the board has the authority to approve this agreement and Steve said this entity can not enter into a contract with anyone. Chief Kondracki said if this is the case, the board is providing supervision and oversight into the development of this contract and the Communications Board should continue to do so. If we can articulate it in a way other than making recommendations but that we’re exercising the oversight required by an agreement, why can’t we. Steve said it is consistent with the authority this body has had well before anyone in this room was part of this board and no new contract is going to change that authority of what should be done by a group of appointed officials. The Communications Board is subject to the authority that was created by the City Council and County Board in the ordinances that adopted this body as primarily an advisory body. Chief Kondracki said to a large part it’s semantics. Trying to come up with a win win it would be nice to hve a little give and take. Chief Cleveland said the thing being lost is the recommendations on oversight to the authority the Communications Board has. In terms of carrying out the day to day process are different than the budgetary issues. Steve O’Malley said again, it is no different than any of the authority you currently have as a body under currant By Laws. You can have input, recommendations and insight but you don’t have the ultimate authority the County Board does. This has never been a problem in 30 years of this joint body. Chief Cleveland said after the first months, what if we put, the Communications Board meets and reviews and makes recommendations to the existing contract as necessary. Vicki Burke said that is what it says. Chief Cleveland asked, if it’s an operational issue, is it a recommendation to the County Board or does that fall under the provisions of the By Law. Steve said it has always been the right of the Communications Board to raise any operational issues to say; what can we do. If you want to make a recommendation to change the whole thing you can but ultimately the County Board and the County Administrative process had always had to make the decisions. They have never tired to incorporate the concerns of this body and have operated for 30 years that way. Chief Kondracki said obviously there is a concern the police and fire and this board won’t have the same ear and if you’re saying we can’t change this language to allay those concerns, then obviously we can’t. Steve O’Malley said they have recognized the importance of this body and an advisory committee that was created by this body. Chief Cleveland said, it should be clear that the operational refutes with regard to the program are articulated in the minutes as such. Steve said he was done.
Motion by O’Malley/Alo the Agreement is forwarded on to the County Board with the recommendation to adopt as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS -
NEXT MEETING DATE
The next regularly scheduled meeting date is January 28, 2007
ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Ranis/Burke to adjourn at 12:45 a.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Disclaimer: The above minutes may be approved, amended or corrected at the next board meeting. Patti McDonah, Recorder