Sedona AZ (November 3, 2011) – In a Letter to the SedonaEye.com editor, a concerned citizen offers the Sedona Fire District Board Minutes and asks the public to be aware of the SFD business meeting decisions and discussions. The letter is as follows:

 

Dear Editor,

Read for yourself about the games being played by the majority of the SFD Board to bypass rules and regulations and waste hard-earned tax-payer funds.

Concerned Citizen

Sedona, AZ

 

~ DRAFT ~

SFD BOARD BUSINESS MEETING  Station #1 – 2860 Southwest Drive – West Sedona – Multipurpose Room 

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 / 5:30 PM
Executive Session ~ and ~ 6:00 PM Public Session

~ MINUTES ~

I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL. 

Board Present:

David Blauert – Chairman

Craig Dible, Phyllis Erick, and Ty Montgomery – Members

Board Absent: Charles Christensen – Clerk

Others Present:

Terry Keller, Assistant Chief

Gary Johnson, Fire Marshal

Karen Daines, Business Director

Bill Whittington, Board Attorney

Sandi Schmidt, Finance Manager

Some SFD Employees

Approximately 40 Members of the Public

Tricia Greer, Recording Clerk

II. EXECUTIVE SESSION – 5:30 PM.

A. Vote to go into Executive Session Pursuant to ARS Section 38-431.03(A)(3), Legal Advice, and ARS Section 38-431.03(A)(4) Instructions to Attorney – Re: 1. Agreement with Tyler Technologies for Enterprise Resource Management Software.

2. SFD Fire Chief Search Committee. 

Mr. Blauert called the meeting to order and requested adjournment into Executive Session per ARS Section 38-431.03(A)(3), Legal Advice, and Section 38-431.03(A)(4)  Instructions to Attorney about the agendized items; Mr. Montgomery so moved, Mr. Dible seconded, and the motion unanimously passed.

III. PUBLIC SESSION – 6:00 PM.

A. Salute to the Flag of the United States of America and Moment of Silence to Honor All American Men and Women in Service to Our Country, Firefighters, and Police Officers. 

Upon opening the Public Session, Mr. Blauert led the Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of Silence.

B. Items from Executive Session above:

1. Discussion/Possible Action:

Agreement with Tyler Technologies for Enterprise Resource Management Software and Implementation Services. 

One member of the public requested to speak regarding this item, as follows. 

Karen Strauch, Chapel Area: I wish to speak on the issue of Tyler Technology contract and how events in the contract’s negotiations violate SFD policies and procedures. In addition, this issue is just one more illustration of why the public should be and is greatly concerned of the actions of the majority of this Board. Tyler Technologies is to provide resource management software to the district. It’s a large contract. I have no issue with the company whatsoever, only with how the contract negotiations are being handled. I want to refer to Policy #2010-01 on Purchasing that includes contracts for services. Part 2.E refers to purchases over $10,000 and says in part, “bids and proposals will be presented to the Board with staff recommendations. At some point, Mr. Blauert took over the negotiation of this contract and instructed Tyler Technologies to talk only to him, not Karen Daines the Business Manager. Why? Mrs. Daines wrote the RFP, outlined the system requirements, and began the negotiation process. In a large contract, the logic would be to have knowledgeable people giving input. How does it benefit the fire district to have her removed from this process? How can part 2.E be followed when the staff is shut out? I quote part 8 of this same policy, “The Fire Board is a unit of authority. Apart from his or her normal function as part of a unit, Board members have no individual purchasing authority. As individuals, Board Members may not commit the district to any policy, act, or expenditure.” Where was the public meeting that appointed Mr. Blauert the primary negotiator? Again, as has happened so often before, one Board 

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 2

Member has gone on a mission without Board approval in public. So, the pattern continues to repeat itself. Some Board Members do not desire staff input – certainly from your former Chief, nor from your Business Manager, nor do you seem to want much public input. However, ironically, in the one instance where an objective Board decision on the Chapel Station is required, you apparently desire to shirk your responsibility and send an objective safety issue out to a public opinion poll. Thank you.

Mr. Blauert stated this has been discussed repeatedly and asked Mr. Dible for comments.

Mr. Dible said he and Mrs. Erick served on the Committee and this was something staff wanted from the beginning; he said a collective decision was made to engage Tyler and he is looking forward to implementation. He further stated the contractual issues were resolved and it is time to vote on the contract.

Mrs. Erick said she would like to see a recommendation from McGladrey on whether our current software program is sufficient or if SFD really needs Tyler at the cost it will incur.

Mr. Montgomery asked where money is allocated for this project.

Ms. Daines responded initial implementation fees of $55,000 or $60,000 are allocated in this year’s budget; she said ongoing annual costs would be $30,000 to come from current fees to our payroll company, ADP, as well as fees for our current financial system. She explained this is a “cloud” system and SFD would not own the software, but subscribe to it.

Mr. Montgomery asked if staff was excluded from deciding if Tyler is the correct product for the district; Ms. Daines responded staff led the Committee and process to select Tyler and supports this effort; however, staff was directed to not participate in contract term negotiations, although she negotiated pricing.

Mr. Montgomery asked if, normally, contracts are negotiated by staff and, then, given to the Board for approval or disapproval;

Ms. Daines responded, “Yes”.

Mr. Montgomery asked the realistic implementation timeline with the annual financial audit, McGladrey study, upcoming budget preparation, and staff’s workload;

Ms. Daines responded it would be 7/1/12; during initial talks with Tyler, they felt an agreement by July or August could be implemented on 1/1/12, but that is no longer realistic with staff workload
for other projects and upcoming holidays; she said according to Tyler and her experience, this will be a six-month implementation; Ms. Daines said the software is “canned” requiring tailoring to SFD’s needs and, specifically, our finance system’s chart of accounts and segregated funds, as well as Human Resource components for data conversion from the existing system. This and training on a new software system will take time; there are new modules included with Tyler, such as an inventory system and fleet maintenance, SFD has not used; Tyler will not be able to implement it without staff involvement, and staff resources cannot be committed until after January 1st.

Mr. Blauert then entertained a motion to approve the Tyler Technologies agreement; Mr. Dible so moved, Mr. Blauert provided a second, and upon calling for the vote, it failed at 2 to 2 with Mr. Blauert and Mr. Dible voting affirmatively and Mrs. Erick and Mr. Montgomery voting against.

2. Update/Discussion/Possible Action: Fire Chief Search Committee. 

One citizen requested to speak on this item, as follows. 

Thomas Purcel, Rolling Hills: Good evening. I live in Rolling Hills and have had property there since the mid-90s. I’m on the selection search committee and some comments were made at the last Board meeting here that were kind of, oh, one-sided, if you will. I don’t think the Board was blind-sided. The Board was invited to every Committee meeting we had. Mr. Blauert and Mrs. Erick were at every committee meeting that we had. The rest of the Board Members could be like the public. Anyone could attend those meetings. So, there weren’t any secrets. There weren’t any blind-siding going on. I looked at some of the things that were raised from the Minutes of the last meeting and it had to do with legal issues. And, even though one of the Board Members thought, I’m talking about the Governing Board Members, thought that it may expose the district to liability. They thought there should be legal opinions. You can have any legal opinions from any attorney you want. I don’t care if it’s Mr. Whittington or wherever it is. It is merely an opinion. The court decides whether it is accurate or not.
Anybody can sue anybody for any reason. So, if the Board is trying to be perfect in everything. You know, God bless you for trying to do a good job and be perfect, but you are not going to get perfection. There was nothing… we did not reinvent the wheel in

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 3

trying to do this selection committee process. We took the best of what we thought from other organizations. They had a blurb about worrying about Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They wanted to put something… that could have been put on the website after our work was turned in. There was some concern about a driver’s license or Social Security number. That could have been redacted after those applications came in. Those were not hurdles that should have stopped the process. What invites your Equal Opportunity Employment Commission to come into your venue is when you start accepting Federal grants. That opens the door for the EEOC. I have been to not only weeks and months, but years in Federal court on different issues on this and I can tell you that you can put any blurb you want. It means nothing. If you have 100 firefighters and not one is a majority and the majority in our society is female, that will get their attention or could get their attention. Another thing, you could have an activist group. We had ABLE, which is Advocates for Basic Legal Equality. They can come in. I don’t care what kind of legal things you have in there. They can come in and sue you and they can take you to court. And they are fighting you with your own tax dollars. Their resources are endless. So, normally, what communities do or districts do, they wind up signing consent decrees and, usually, the consent decrees are along about the makeup in your community…makeup of males, females, different racial diversity, whatever. That’s how that whole thing gets rolling. So, just a little blurb about we’re an Equal Opportunity Employer, that doesn’t get it and that doesn’t mean anything. I’m telling you that was a really decent instrument or document. I give a great deal of credit to the Board members that did show up for every meeting and it’s something you need. You need a Chief. You need a good, decisive Chief and that was what the committee was trying to do. What the past Chiefs may not have done, they may not…

Fire Marshal Johnson informed him his three minutes were up.

Mr. Blauert reported he attended Chief Search committee meetings and has not received a committee’s request and action to date; he moved that until the committee makes the request, the Board needs to postpone it until that request is made by the committee.

Mr. Montgomery said this committee made some “pretty big mistakes” in his opinion, which was seen with the legal review following the posting that should have been done in the first place. He said he has been made aware tonight that the committee has made fairly unreasonable demands and held the process hostage for the last three weeks;

Mr. Montgomery then moved that the Board disband the Fire Chief Search Committee and start over.

Mrs. Erick asked Mr. Whittington if Mr. Montgomery was discussing something from Executive Session that should not have been discussed here;

Mr. Whittington replied he heard no detail that would violate the Open Meeting Law.

Mr. Blauert then requested a second to his motion.

Mr. Dible asked him to repeat his motion;

Mr. Blauert stated his motion is the committee has not directed or requested the Board of their decision on Mr. Whittington’s law firm and we have not received a request of any kind from the committee, and at this time, he requests it be postponed until we receive a decision from the committee.

Mr. Whittington asked if this is a motion to table.

Mr. Blauert said, “Yes”.

Mr. Dible then seconded the motion.

Mr. Blauert then called for the vote which failed at 2 to 2 with Mr. Blauert and Mr. Dible voting affirmatively and Mrs. Erick and Mr. Montgomery voting against.

Mr. Montgomery apologized for making his motion out of order. He then restated his motion to disband the Fire Chief Search Committee and start a new Committee.

The motion died for lack of a second.

Mr. Blauert then stated he would look to the Search Committee for their direction or request of the Board.

IV. PUBLIC FORUM.  

Karen Schmitt, Chapel Area: I live in the station-less Chapel area. I was going through some old papers that were bequeathed to me by a former Board member and I found the neatest thing. I found your Code of Ethics that was passed in July of 2010 and Mr. Christensen was among those who voted for it. And I thought maybe the Board needed a reminder. I found them very interesting. “The Sedona Fire District Governing Board occupies a position of public trust and is committed to observing and promoting the highest standard of ethical conduct and professionalism in the performance of their duties.” This is #1 of what you have sworn to: “Adhere to Arizona Law pertaining to conflicts of interest and pecuniary interest” – Violated. #2: “Abide by the Sedona Fire District Board Rules of Procedure and SFD policy

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 4

and procedure as regards the Governing Board” – Violated. #3: “Abide by all Open Meeting Law requirements” – Violated. #4: “Abide by all pertinent laws, policy, and procedures regarding  confidentiality” – Violated. #5: “Understand the roles of the Fire District Governing Board and the Fire Chief” – Violated. #6: “Work honestly and openly with the Fire Chief to obtain factual information and resolve issues within the Fire District” – you all know you violated that, all except one member of this Board. #7: “Refrain from making use of special knowledge or information before it is made available to the general public” –  Violated. #8: “Refrain from influencing the employment of district employees” – that is an important one that has been violated over and over. #9: “Refrain from using influence of office as gained by members of the Governing Board to secure contracts or favorable action for friends, family, or business associates” – may I repeat that one? “Refrain from using influence of office as gained by members of the Governing Board to secure contracts or other favorable action for friends, family, or business associates”. #10: “Refrain from speaking or taking any action on the part of the SFD Governing Board unless specifically mandated by the SFD Governing Board at a public meeting” – of course, we know that has been violated constantly. These are not my rules. These are yours. Thank you.

James Evans, Chapel area: Several weeks ago, Mr. Blauert showed me a copy of the proposed Midway Station survey form and asked if the Chapel Station Study Committee would review it. Although the Committee did not meet, they all received a copy of the form. I received a number of comments from them and a copy of this report was given to Mr. Blauert last week. I also ask that a copy of this report be included in the Board packets for this meeting. Now I’ve not seen any potential revisions in the form and there may very well have been some. Relative to the comments of the Committee, all felt that a survey was not needed because the Committee Report provided sufficient justification to build the facility. When Station 3 was in the conceptual stage, the Board decided to build it based on the level of existing service and the concern about future needs. No meetings or surveys. It was done regardless of some complainers in the district. It is now the second busiest station in the district. There is a concern that this survey will pit Uptown, West Sedona, and the Village who already have excellent service, against the greater Chapel area. Residents are often uninformed and make little effort to learn the facts. My wife was told by a neighbor a few days ago that the Chapel Station cannot be built because the new water tank is not yet in the Chapel area. I have been asked why the City won’t approve the station. I was thanked years ago when I was on the Board for sending a Sedona fire truck to a Village fire. Some have said that since there was no station in the Chapel area when people moved in, let them live with it. And how many of our citizens do you think will look up anything on the website? If the survey is sent out, the Committee had some suggestions.  First, was to replace the word “another” with the word “a” on the outside of the form in the middle section because it now reads as if there’s already a station in the Chapel area. Two, was to send the forms to Attorney Whittington’s office or as I just learned awhile ago, to NAU instead of Cosse and Wallace. The results should be free of any suspicion of anything. The Committee suggested that the following changes should be made to the third and fourth paragraphs of the survey form. The first change is to point out that the reason for the station is to reduce emergency response time and nothing else. The second change is to provide taxpayers with some idea of how much this proposed station would increase their tax bill. After all, $2 million is a lot of money and some would have no idea of how to calculate the potential tax increase. A copy of the two revised paragraphs is attached to this report. I thank you. 

Rich Collister, West Sedona: As I sat listening to the Board over the past months, I find it mind-boggling the priorities you have undertaken as an agenda. For example, you hired the highest bidder to do an outside audit of the fire department organization and fire department operations. Apparently, you need an outside audit because you have no clue about such things, nor are you willing to acquire such information from the knowledgeable personnel who make up the fire department – people who dedicate their lives to serve the public and protect life and property. By the way, did you know that the mission of the fire department was to protect life and property? Have you ever spent time inside a firehouse or gone on any emergency runs, medical runs, auto extrications, fire emergencies, high angle rope rescues, wildland fires, assist civilians? Have you? Have you seen how the firemen start their tour, check the rigs, fire tools and equipment, their masks, their medical equipment to ensure they are in good working order?

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 5 

Have you ever seen or even care how to use this life-saving equipment? I also heard that one Board Member who’s not up there tonight couldn’t even go to a certain firehouse because there was a restraining order against him. I don’t know if  that’s true or not. Let me get back to the fire department audit again. Not only is the $179,000 to hire your audit company is the highest bid by at least
$50,000 out of three. Joe Demme, who you select to run the Chief’s Selection Committee, wife works for the company. Now, if I’m not mistaken, this guy, Demme, ran for the Fire Board and lost and now he sits at the head of the Fire Board’s Chief Selection Committee. Now, I’m not suggesting it, but it sure reeks of inappropriate behavior to me. Another example, Ms. Eck up there uses fire department money to consult with an outside attorney.

Mrs. Erick stated “It’s Erick”.

Mr. Collister continued: OK, Phyllis. Don’t you trust the attorney that’s sitting right there? Do you think he’s going to lie to you? Do you think he’s going to give you bad advice? It seems that way to me. These are just two examples of many which reek of incompetence to me. Over the past few months, I’ve talked with two past-Fire Board members – one from Sedona and the other from another part of the state. They both told me that upon being elected to the respective Fire Boards, the first order of business was to get out into the fire department and visit and do ridealongs to see how the organization they govern over operates, so they can understand and better make informed decisions regarding such. Have you guys ever done any of that? I’d also like to make a quick comment about the Fire Board’s Selection Committee. Please keep Joe Demme’s statements and comments pertinent as they relate to the Selection Committee process. I don’t need to hear his opinions and comments about the fire department outside the scope of the selection process. I’m not interested. For after all, he did lose the election and I’m really not sure what he’s even doing up there. He lost. Nobody wanted him. He lost the election. So, now, we’ve got another guy who knows nothing about fire department operations making decisions to find a Fire Chief. And if he’s going to continue to make comments outside the scope of the Chief Selection process, open the meeting to a Public Forum so taxpayers and residents such as me can voice their opinion. Once again, I just want to thank the Chief and the members of the fire department.

Wendy Tanzer, Village of Oak Creek: Minutes of the last regular Governing Board meeting are available on video, so anyone can view every possible example of lack of professionalism, lack of comportment, and lack of ability to remain within the scope and authority of certain positions held. Also recorded on that video is the stark absence of leadership from Chairman Dave Blauert. The fact is all findings and conclusions reached by any appointed Committees must be brought before the Board as recommendations for actions, subject to Board approval. Period. To subvert that process would undermine Board authority, lead to utter chaos and, oh yes, violates statute ARS 38-431, subsection 1. Always the voice of reason, Ty Montgomery’s valiant attempt to bring this to the Chairman’s attention was met with Mr. Blauert’s “well, that’s a matter for debate”. No, Sir. There is no debate on this issue. Two committees or ten – one set of rules. What if well-meaning, hardworking Selection Committee members make painfully incorrect assumptions, then pursue them independently? Non-compliance with EEOC standards is serious business. For a fire district of this size with this presumed level of professional status to commit such egregious errors is not acceptable and leaves the door wide open for costly discrimination lawsuits. The words “well-meaning and hardworking” are not a defense. Ignorance of Statutes is not a defense. Perhaps that’s why this Board has a legal advisor. Ms. Erick shouted at attendees, “What is wrong with you people?” My response: “righteous indignation”. At one, a weak Chairman unwilling to evenhandedly assert authority, unable to effectively execute parliamentary rule and unaware of exactly how to manage either Board appointed committees or Board meetings. Two, a Board majority so blindly intent on the ends of their agendas, they ignore the means by which they are reached, placing the entire public trust in jeopardy.  And, three, the unconscionable suggestion by Ms. Erick of yet additional outside legal fees paid with taxpayer funds because Mr. Whittington was not able to instantly respond to her demands. There are a number of people in this district with vast business experience, some with extensive training in viewing multiple sides of a single situation. At an early Selection Committee meeting,  I attempted to bring to Joe Demme’s attention the authority issue and we were all subjected to his resulting diatribe. Perhaps it would be wise to pay a little less attention to the messenger’s yellow t-shirt and a little more attention to the message.  Thank you.

. ~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 6 

V.  CONSENT AGENDA.

A. September 21, 2011 Business Meeting Minutes.

B. September 21, 2011 Executive Session Minutes. 

Mr. Montgomery moved to approve the Consent Agenda, as presented.

Mr. Dible provided a second and the motion was unanimously approved 4 to 0.

VI. BUSINESS.

A. Discussion/Possible Action: SFD  “Chapel” Station. (Per Board Action on 9/21/11.)

1. Possible Survey of Community.
(Requested by Chairman Blauert.) 

Diane Schoen, Chapel area: I volunteered to serve on the Chapel Station Committee and was appointed by the president and Board. This Committee spent many hours meeting, studying, and discussing all issues concerning building the Midway Station. The recommendation was made to the Board and now it’s in your hands as Board Members to step up to your responsibility and make a decision, one way or another, for moving forward. Even though I am in favor of moving forward with the building of the much-needed station to assure the safety of all the residents of the district, I’m now a little more concerned with the fact that this Board does not accept or reject a report from a duly appointed Committee. Why even bother having a Committee? Why was all that time spent? I’ll tell you why. Mr. Blauert, the president of this Board, said to me and I quote, “this Committee disappointed me. They should have presented more options, not just one recommendation”. That’s a quote.  In other words, the Committee did not make the recommendation that Dave Blauert wanted.  So, his solution is to do a costly, probably $6,000 to $10,000 community survey.  Let’s spend more money. Let’s just go out and spend more money, more public money. Just go ahead, because you don’t like the decision of a duly-appointed Committee. This Board has to make a decision. This Board should make the decision. The Committee came with a recommendation. Vote it up. Vote it down. Act like a Board. I’ve spoken numerous times to this Board. Many years ago, it’s almost two and a half years ago, about the station. I’ve spoken about illegal behaviors and decisions. I even spoke about freedom of speech for the public. And, now, again, about the shirking of responsibilities of your Board duties. It seems like whatever is said to this Board, no matter what is said, makes no difference. I only hope that the electorate is listening and making a decision of how you will vote and how they will vote in the future when choosing future members of the Board of Directors. Thank you.

Karen Schmitt, Chapel area:  I would like to read a direct quote from Mrs. Erick from the 12/16/09 Minutes where she chides former-Board Member Liza Vernet by telling her, “You should be embarrassed to bring up any consideration or option for the Chapel Station in this economy”.  However, in the very next sentence, Erick states, unequivocally, “There are no options. This station should be permanently canceled.” I bring this up because just months later when she was running for office, their entire slate agreed that “A small station should be considered. We will work with Chapel residents to design an appropriate station that meets their needs.” By the way, that’s from your own 10 point postcard from the election. I have it here in case anyone doubts me, they can see it, about the need for a Midway Station, even after fighting tooth and nail against it before you ran. Fast forward to the present, a Chapel Station Study Committee was chosen, as Diane said, and asked to begin the entire study process yet again from the beginning. They submitted their recommendation to the Board after months of study at the last meeting. Evidently, the outcome did not coincide with the Board’s opinion. After Mr. Blauert openly let it be known he was very unhappy with the recommendation of the study group, I found out just how resourceful some members of this Board can be. Once again, they have met behind closed doors to come up with yet another way to delay this project. And once again, put community safety at risk. Let’s send out a survey, and now, let the people decide which areas of the city should have appropriate response times and which are expendable. When I asked Mr. Blauert, personally, why he would do a survey at this point, he said, quote, “We have to”. Why is that, Mr. Blauert? Have you made promises you are now unable to keep? Is it too embarrassing for you to vote no on this issue, now that this project has had the stamp of approval from every single expert and citizens’ committees who have studied the facts? This station has been a political football for at least five years. It’s outrageous that this Board would continue to use excuses and transparent delay tactics when the lives of both me and my neighbors are at risk every ~

DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 7

minute of every day. During the last election, Blauert and Erick said in their ad, “The opposition has pledged and promised all sorts of stuff. Doesn’t every politician running for office?” That’s in your ad and I have that with me, too. Speak for yourselves. Not every politician misleads the public. Thank you.

Joan Shannon, Uptown: My question is, are we going to have a fire department that’s run by the fire department and by a Fire Board that was elected to do their job, or are we going to have a fire department that’s run by community surveys? I remember, years ago, when John Sather, you remember him, Dave? When John Sather did our first community development, he had meetings all over town, asking people what do you want our town to look like? Which direction do you want your town to go? What do you want here? What do you want there? Depending on what part of town he was in, he got very different answers. If he had a meeting in Uptown, us Uptown people had certain things we would like to see. If he went to West Sedona, and my husband and I went to all the meetings, if you had a meeting in West Sedona and brought up something about Uptown, West Sedona people would say, well, why should we care about what’s Uptown? We don’t live up there. We live in West Sedona. We only care about what we have in West Sedona. We don’t care about Uptown. Let Uptown people take care of Uptown. I think that’s the same attitude you will get if you do a survey. If the surveys happen to pull people out of Upper Red Rock Loop Road and Chavez Crossing, I know what the answer’s going to be. Why should the Chapel have a station? You closed our station down. So, we’re not for a station in the Chapel because we don’t have one. I don’t think this is a good idea to have a survey because I think the other side that wants a Chapel Station can just as easily get the money together, hire an organization, and do their own survey and come out with an entirely different result than you come out with, if your result is the one you want – no station. So, then, it would just be a battle of surveys. I think we have a perfectly professional fire department. I was hoping we’d have a professional Fire Board, but it seems like our Fire Board’s in chaos every meeting. You don’t seem to get anything resolved and done properly. So, I think it’s about time to, there’s been two committees, make a decision and go forward and get this done, and forget about spending our tax money, again, after all the money you’ve spent, on another survey. I sometimes think all these things come up just to overwhelm us and to get us so tired of all the things going on that we don’t come to so many meetings anymore. Well, that’s not going to happen. We’re still going to come. And you should not be running the fire department by community surveys. Thank you. 

Thomas Purcel, Rolling Hills:  I do like firemen. My twin brother was a fireman. And it would be nice in an ideal world if we had a fire station every couple of thousand feet and maybe, perhaps, if we could have a police substation along with them every couple of thousand feet. I thought Mr. Evans’ committee did a lot of hard work and I give them credit for that. What I wanted to see and I did not see, as far as expenses go, I did not see anything about the per capita tax. There was an article in the Red Rock News on March 18th by Patrick Whitehurst where it said Sedona lost 8% of their people on the last census. That’s approximately 900 residents. It means we have a declining population. When you have a declining population, you have fewer people to pay taxes, which means the remaining people pay more taxes. I think you have to look long and hard when you have a declining population and when you have an economy like we have now, whether you can embark on a large construction project. If you have a fire station or even a police station within a couple hundred feet of you, that doesn’t guarantee you’re going to get immediate and expeditious service. Some neighbors and I were walking back from Wildflower two years ago when they were still building the roundabouts. We were on Brewer Road and the neighbor tripped on a portable sign, went down, hit his head on the pavement, and blood started to spew out, and I immobilized him and I held him for the EMT guys and every siren I heard, I thought I was going to be relieved. There were four Sedona Police cars there before the first fire personnel showed up. And I have no problem with that because I know the fire people were busy. What I’m trying to say is, if you have a fire station next door and they’re out helping someone on  I-17 or wherever, you can wait a long time. You are not guaranteed immediate service because they are close by geographically. I hope because of our declining population and because of our economic situation right now, I would hope the Board would take a long, hard look before we rush into any large appropriations or expenditures. Phoenix Fire couldn’t afford their own resources. Their fire union was good enough, they took a vote, they voted last ~

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 8

year to take a 3.4% wage reduction so they didn’t have to lay off fellow firefighters. I  wouldn’t want future reductions to harm our firefighters that way and I’m sure that would be a difficult choice to make. I just hope the Board gives it long and careful consideration. Thank you very much and, again, I think that committee did a good job, except I would have liked to have seen the per capita tax. Thank you.

Corrie Cooperman, Chapel Area: I’m also a member of the Chapel Study Committee. I’m here to address the issue of a survey to help you decide whether or not to build the Midway Fire Station in the Chapel area. Chairman Blauert, you did ask our committee to conduct such a survey as part of its research. After purposeful discussion, our study group concluded that conducting such a survey would
produce unreliable input because the public at large is not informed about the complexities and variations in response times that exist in different sections of Sedona, nor are they informed about budget considerations and project design details of the proposed Midway Fire Station. More importantly, our study group also uniformly felt that matters of public safety should not be decided by a survey. I would like to put into perspective for you the inappropriateness of using a survey to decide a critical safety matter. Can you imagine the police department sending out a survey to ask Sedona residents which areas of Sedona should receive topnotch policing and which ones should receive inadequate policing? That is, essentially, what this proposed survey will accomplish. The most outstanding finding of the Chapel Fire Station study committee was that the mid-Highway 179 corridor which includes, as you know, 600 homes, 3 large churches, and a resort is grossly unprotected in times of emergency. With an average response time of over 10 minutes, people with life threatening situations could die and homes could go up in flames before firemen arrive. Another important finding was that 1 out of 8 times, the Village of Oak Creek also faces similarly dismal response times because their firemen are out serving other areas, especially the Chapel area. These are facts that would not be known by people filling out your survey form. The building of Midway Station is really a decision that should be made by informed people with power to make the decision, and that’s you. You have the facts, you know you will only have to raise the mil levy 3.3 cents to finance that fire station, to build it and also maintain it. That comes to approximately 11 to 12 dollars per household. Per capita would be another matter. Less. I want to ask you to abandon the use of a survey and instead, please discuss in this meeting tonight the merits of building this critically needed fire station. With interest rates so low and building costs so low, there has never been a better time to build this station and to begin to equalize the quality of fire protection throughout the district. Thank you.
 

Mr. Blauert asked for Board comments.

Mr. Montgomery asked Mr. Blauert why he feels a survey is necessary.

Mr. Blauert said it is $2.6 million at an economical time such as now; he feels that everyone is looking at “every penny in their pocket” and there are people losing their homes in Sedona; he feels it should be voiced by everyone in the community. He said he does not understand how the Midway Station can only be $22,000 per year for operations.

Chief Keller said that was intended to represent our estimated utility costs for that facility over the course of a year because we would use existing apparatus and staffing to operate it in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Blauert heard a recommendation today to let all the voters look at the request and need through a bond issue. He does not find it comfortable to build the station without the taxpayers having their opinion expressed.

Mr. Montgomery agrees people in the respective areas will vote for their respective areas, and the Board is supposed to make decisions for everyone in the district. He said both Fire Board campaigns in the last election committed to build the Chapel Station and recommendations from this Committee, previous committees, prior and current staff, and general tone of the population says “We should build the
Chapel Station”. He disagrees with conducting a survey, and feels the Board should vote on authorizing the expense of building.

Mr. Dible said most people have not had an opportunity to read what this survey says, and then read it aloud as follows: Sedona Fire District Midway Station Taxpayer Survey. Your SFD Governing Board is deciding whether or not to proceed with construction of a new fire station in the Chapel area and would appreciate your input. In April 2011, a SFD Chapel Station Study Committee was formed to explore the need, feasibility, design options, and financing for a possible fire station in the Chapel area. Since this station has the potential to serve surrounding areas including back-up for the Village of Oak Creek, the 

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 9 

Committee decided to rename the facility the Midway Station. On September 21, 2011, the Committee issued its final report recommending a Midway Station to reduce emergency response times for both the greater Chapel area and the Village of Oak Creek. This report, along with the Committee’s meeting minutes and video recordings can be found on the SFD website. Please review these sources to become fully informed on this issue. The recommended two-bay station would cost an estimated $2.6 million using $600,000 in available reserve funds and an additional $2 million in borrowed money. This would result in a mil levy increase of 3.3 cents, which would mean a fire district tax increase of approximately $12 on a home assessed at $350,000. Existing personnel and vehicles would be transferred to the new facility. The estimated annual operating expenses would be $22,000. Future expansion including increased staffing and vehicles is possible. Since this station would be financed by all the taxpayers within the SFD service area, your SFD Board would like to hear from you before we make our final decision. What do you think? Please let us know by completing the survey.

Mr. Dible said this survey was referred to as a transparent delay tactic, that the public is uninformed, and the survey would be a waste of money; however, he believes before spending $2.6 million, district taxpayers should have the chance to voice their opinion.

Mr. Dible said the survey is just a draft and subject to revision.

Mrs. Erick asked who put the survey together;

Mr. Blauert replied he worked on it with Mr. Dible’s help.

Mr. Dible stated he is on the record as being in favor of a satellite station in the Chapel.

Mrs. Erick said she had not seen the survey until receiving her Board packet and would not have approved it because she believes $22,000 in operating expenses is deceptive. She asked Business Director Daines what was received in the budget for the proposed station and if it was $1.2 million;

Ms. Daines responded she was not sure to what Mrs. Erick was referring.

Mrs. Erick said there was one year the Board received the budget in your account even though the station was not built.

Ms. Daines stated SFD has never appropriated operating expenses for the proposed station in any budget because it has not been approved; she said $22,000 represents new, additional money over existing operational funds.

Mrs. Erick asked what the total annual operating costs would be to taxpayers;

Ms. Daines responded the only additional cost would be $22,000 in janitorial supplies, utilities, and small amount of operations and maintenance; the facility would be under warranty and staff does not anticipate any large repair costs.

Mrs. Erick asked Chief Keller how many personnel would be at the proposed station; he responded the plan is to minimally staff it with three personnel on three shifts.

At this point, an audience member called out that Mrs. Erick should recuse herself from voting because of her conflict of interest.

Mr. Blauert called for order.

Mr. Blauert then moved to move forward with the survey at a cost of approximately $4,100; he also commented paid personnel would not count the survey, but hopes they can find community members to work with Committee Chairman Evans and one Board Member. 

Mr. Blauert requested a second to his motion.

Mr. Dible said he wants to meet with Mr. Evans to discuss the survey further and come to the next Board meeting with a decision, but believes the survey should not be sent in its current form.

Mr. Blauert withdrew his motion.

Mr. Dible then moved he work further on the survey and meet with Mr. Evans to come back to the next Board meeting with a recommendation; Mr. Blauert seconded. Upon a call for the vote, Mrs. Erick abstained; the motion passed with a vote of yes from Mr. Blauert and Mr. Dible with Mr. Montgomery voting no.

Mr. Whittington stated an abstention counts with the majority.

Mr. Montgomery then moved to accept the recommendations of the Committee, as they were made including the mil rate increase and to build the Chapel Station; the motion died for lack of a second.

B. Item from Board Member Ty Montgomery:

1. Monthly Update: Current Fees to Date for Legal Services Provided to SFD. 

Mr. Blauert stated legal fees to all the law firms are absolutely appalling and need to be better handled.

Mr. Montgomery asked for the total of September;

Ms. Daines replied $14,000 for Mr. Whittington’s firm and $7,000 to $8,000 for Ridenour, Hienton & Lewis.

Mr. Montgomery said it was $22,000 just for September; he thought the Board previously discussed a policy that anything produced by an attorney at the Board’s request must be distributed to all Board Members.

Mr. Whittington said the prior discussion was the obligation for Board Members who contact legal counsel to let the rest of the Board know, but is ~

DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 10

unaware of a specific policy requiring distribution of documents; however, he said it is the habit of legal counsel and Board to do so.

Ms. Daines said that is not included in the Legal Assistance Policy, but it states the Board Chairman should notice the rest of the Board when it occurs; previous discussion was about any documents being produced by attorneys become the property of the district and should be distributed to all Board Members because they act as a body and not individual units of authority; additionally, copies must be provided to SFD as it acts as the repository for that information.

Mr. Montgomery said in reviewing legal bills, he sees legal opinions and letters referenced; as an example, he said a letter was prepared regarding “unjust enrichment” for the amount of $500 and he has no idea what that is or why we got it; he stated as a member of the Governing Board that oversees district spending, he should be informed about same; he stated from $22,000 of services, his name was only connected to three items – two e-mails and one phone call to Mr. Whittington totaling around $100.

Mr. Montgomery then moved that it be policy all Board Members receive copies of all legal documents procured by a Board Member paid by the district, unless deemed confidential for an appropriate reason through attorney-client privilege.

Mr. Whittington said every Board Member is entitled to see all the documents, and the Board as a whole owns the confidentiality from an attorney relating to district business; there are no
individual Board member items, but rather they belong to the entire Board.

Mr. Montgomery said he does not have time to call all the law firms regularly to make sure he has received all documents and the Board should all be “cc’d” on district business to be able to make correct decisions.

Mr. Blauert then provided a second for the previous motion. The motion unanimously passed at 4 to 0.

Mr. Blauert commented he has recommendations for Board level control of legal fees and looks to Chief Keller to control the staff side.

Mr. Dible did an analysis of all legal bills from the different firms starting with this fiscal year on July 1st through the end of October although it included some legal work done in June; he created 22 categories of where money has been spent and asked a copy of his analysis be included with the Minutes (attached).

Mr. Blauert clarified the charge regarding “unjust enrichment” was not SFD’s and has been retracted.

Chief Keller asked why there was a letter to Mr. Dible regarding that topic listed on the invoice;

Mr. Dible said he had no idea since he never received it.

Chief Keller said staff also spent time reviewing the $50,000 in legal bills analyzed by Mr. Dible and that staff only produced 15.8% of those legal expenditures and the rest resulted from Board actions; he declared staff has a responsibility to be frugal in using legal services and will continue to do so, although there are times it is appropriate to procure legal advice regarding verbiage on agendas and related items; he said Ms. Greer has his express permission to contact Mr. Whittington regarding those matters and for anything beyond that, Ms. Greer would require his permission to talk to Mr. Whittington and the same holds true for Ms. Daines regarding contract or other SFD business matters. Additionally, Chief Keller said he researched five fiscal years of legal expenses, as follows:

In 2006, $28,000 was spent with $32,000 budgeted; in the following years: $33,000; $39,000; $67,000; $53,000, and $57,000 last year; the $45,000 budgeted for this year has already been exceeded with seven months remaining in the fiscal year; he agrees with Mr. Blauert that these expenses must be controlled. He then offered an example of a legal expense from Blake Whiteman at Ridenour, Hienton & Lewis who charged $25 to “review” the following e-mail from Ms. Greer: Please note the Fire Chief Search Committee meeting previously scheduled for tomorrow has been canceled by the Committee Chairman Joe Demme. Thank you. It was determined Mr. Whiteman was charging SFD to review every Agenda and Minutes from the e-mails noticing everyone about upcoming meetings in spite of the fact SFD was also charged by Mr. Whittington as the district’s attorney; he said Mr. Whiteman has since been removed from the group e-mail list. Chief Keller stated that type of thing is going to stop;

Mr. Blauert agreed and said a policy for the Board would be discussed later on the Agenda.

Mr. Dible said in his analysis, “Board Meetings” was a large figure and included those e-mail reviews.

2. Update: Status of SFD Reserve Program. 

Mr. Montgomery said the reserve program is on hold; former-Chief Hazime was working on it with them. Mr. Montgomery said with the McGladrey audit underway and other on-going projects, they decided to table it until after a new Fire Chief is found, and there is no money available for it currently; he said with ~

DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 11

potential changes to the organization, it is not the time to implement a large personnel program.

Mr. Montgomery said he is for the concept, as he and Chief Keller discussed, but it is tabled for now.

Chief Keller said another postponing factor was trying to bring Human Resources support to help with those new hires; he reported overtime has been significantly reduced from recent years and if they can keep firefighters healthy, that number can remain in line with what an organization our size should be.

Mr. Blauert thanked him for that good news and stated the reserve program would be on hold.

C. Items from Board Chairman David Blauert:

1. Discussion/Possible Action: Updates to “Legal Assistance” Policy. 

Mr. Blauert said the ease of being able to “pick up a phone” and run up legal bills is ridiculous and must be controlled; he asked for Board opinions.

Mr. Montgomery said he reviewed the draft Legal Assistance Policy which says all requests for legal assistance must be approved by the Chairman before calling an attorney.

Mr. Blauert said it could be another designated person on the Board and it will help control costs.

Mr. Montgomery is concerned about it being too restrictive in contacting the Board attorney; he does not see legal assistance being abused by staff, even though there have been assertions to that effect.

Chief Keller said Ms. Greer has a legitimate business need to contact Mr. Whittington periodically regarding Board business and Mr. Whittington’s practice has been to occasionally contact her regarding Agenda items and Board-related issues.

Mr. Montgomery said he has heard allegations that firefighters can call Mr. Whittington directly;

Mr. Blauert replied that is not true;

Chief Keller confirmed same and said it has been strictly kept to Executive Staff and the Fire Chief for appropriate business needs.

Mr. Dible said he referenced Policy #2000-06 during the August 31st meeting, which he believed was the current version of the Legal Assistance Policy as it was in his Board information binder; however, since then, he received a copy of the newer version approved in 2006; he said that Policy states: “Any requests for legal assistance from the Governing Board members has to come from the Board Chairman or a Board member with notice to the Board Chairman.” His suggestion for revision is to add “and approval by the Board Chairman” to have a “gatekeeper”
for legal expenses.

Mr. Montgomery gave an example of him wanting legal opinion on an issue that the Chairman disagreed with, he could be told he could not receive legal counsel about the item; he said he believes the Board must have the right to contact the Board attorney and exercise their own good judgment of the money being spent.

Mr. Dible asked how the legal bills could be controlled in a reasonable way.

Chief Keller said, historically, the organization has established Board policies which control the behavior of the Board and Standard Administrative Procedures (SAPs) to dictate procedures for personnel; he said the referenced document is a Board Policy and SFD has a SAP on this topic, as well, with the Fire Chief being the “gatekeeper” for legal requests; he
suggested the SAP needs to be updated because it refers to a Deputy Chief, which SFD no longer has.

Mr. Blauert wants self-policing by the Board and a Policy that controls it; he is sorry Mr. Montgomery feels he would turn down his legal requests.

Mr. Montgomery said, hypothetically, it puts any Chairman in a difficult position because it would be easy to make an accusation a Chairman was denying requests based on political reasons and his comment had nothing to do with Mr. Blauert personally.

Chief Keller suggested they simply state that any Board Member notice the rest of the Board with his/her intention to contact legal counsel prior to such contact;

Mr. Dible says current Policy just states “notice to the Board Chairman”;

Mr. Montgomery agreed that is appropriate for the Board to do.

Mr. Dible asked if the Policy should just be left alone.

Mr. Whittington said this comes up periodically when legal bills increase and his recommendation has typically been to require some sort of reporting, but to not  “tie a Board member’s hands” and that any legal contact be subsequently reported to all the Board at an agendized monthly meeting; this would allow the Board to execute control.

Mr. Dible asked what Mr. Whittington does when a non-Board Member calls him for legal advice; he said he answers the question and said it is extraordinarily rare for his firm to get calls regarding SFD from anyone other than senior management or the Board; on a rare occasion, he gets a member of the public complaining about an issue and directs them to the Chairman or management.

Mr. Dible says the Board must conscientiously notify the Board Chairman before making contact with an attorney; Board consensus was to keep the current Policy. 

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 12

2. Discussion/Possible Action: New Board Policy regarding Contract Authorization. 

Mr. Blauert asked for comments.

Mr. Dible said the amount was left blank;

Mr. Blauert asked if the Board had passed a $5,000 limit on contracts.

Ms. Daines said she was unsure to what Mr. Blauert was referring.

Mr. Montgomery said the draft was e-mailed to the Board from Mr. Whittington’s staff today.

Mr. Blauert moved this item be tabled; Mr. Montgomery seconded; the motion unanimously passed.

3. Discussion/Possible Action: Memorandum of Understanding between City of Sedona and Sedona Fire District for Police Services. (Tabled from 9/21/11 Business Meeting.)

Mr. Blauert said he no longer wants this MOU because legal expenses have accrued exceeding support received from the police;

Chief Keller said the original agreement term was from July 1st to the end of the year; the MOU is being reviewed by the City Attorney again; he agrees the expense is not warranted and civility seems to be maintaining at meetings;

Chief Keller stated the City has generated an invoice for past police attendance, which was being held until the MOU passed.

Mr. Blauert then moved to do away with the MOU between the City of Sedona and SFD and recognize any outstanding liabilities for the police service at this time; Mr. Montgomery seconded and the motion was unanimously approved at 4 to 0.

4. Discussion/Possible Action: Resolution Establishing Standards by which Services may be Contracted to Private Parties by the SFD by SFD Resident Doug Ayres. 

Mr. Blauert asked Doug Ayres to speak.

Mr. Ayres requested the Board adopt the proposed Resolution, which has been called an anti-corruption resolution by some jurisdictions. He said most jurisdictions adopted this as an ordinance with misdemeanor penalties and referral to district attorney for potential felony penalties. He submitted this to Mr. Blauert twice for Board consideration; his request was fomented by a considerable number of
items in the McGladrey contract seeking ways to outsource present SFD employee functions.

Mr. Ayres said, if adopted, it would encompass all RFPs, RFQs, informal and formal bids, and contracts for services issued by the district for $2,500 or more and would require: (1) a penalty of perjury statement for bidders that know election contribution or any benefit, payment, goods, cash, or service has been or will be made to any Board member or candidate or district employee for four years prior to contract duration and four years thereafter; (2) bidder has not and will not employ a director or district employee for four years prior to and after contract expiration; (3) CPA certified contractor personal or
business financial capability statement by any contractor; (4) background investigation reports of several specific levels for all proposed contractor employees and adequate proof of applicable technical and professional capabilities; (5) tightly define comparison of contractor with district certified costs reasonably borne to assure lower expense and equal quality of contract versus district employee services; (6) annual report of service costs and quality by the district in all contractors with one year cancellation if contractor costs rise or quality drops, with a four year limit on all contracts;  (7) statement of specific taxes and other revenue sources to be provided to, or utilized to finance, any contract; (8) contractor compliance with all Arizona laws including public records and open meeting.

Mr. Ayres said taxpayers can draw their own conclusions as to why if this Resolution is not considered and adopted by the Board.

Mr. Blauert said Mr. Ayres mentioned agencies have adopted this type of resolution and asked him to name them;

Mr. Ayres said he cannot because those have been adopted in executive session because of legal problems as well as threatened and actual lawsuits; he was in those executive sessions and sworn to not divulge those jurisdictions.

Mr. Blauert said he had asked for legal review of this by Mr. Whittington who thought it would generate much extra work for staff;

Mr. Ayres said, historically, it has not because the concept of cost reasonably borne is known by better administered jurisdictions;  he said some extra work is required.

Mr. Blauert said he was concerned about extra work for staff, but agrees with some of the requirements.

Mr. Ayres said he would work with and instruct staff, at no charge, on costs reasonably borne.

Mr. Montgomery stated he likes some of the ideas, but said SFD does not have ordinances;

Mr. Ayres said that is why you could not have a legal misdemeanor behind it;

Mr. Montgomery agrees with having a “level playing field” for contracts, although has concerns about restricting former SFD employees from working for other agencies for four years; there is merit in the document but it must be ~

DRAFT ~  10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 13

tailored to SFD;

Mr. Ayres said that has been done by some agencies.

Mr. Dible commented it would require additional legal expenses to modify and would defer to Mr. Whittington’s  opinion.

Mr. Whittington reviewed the document and identified portions that could be used and portions SFD may not use because of statutory limitations; he said it would take time to generate a document to conform.

Mr. Dible asked Chief Keller if this would be overly burdensome for staff to follow;

Chief Keller responded it does seem to create opportunities for added scrutiny regarding contracts; he said, however, he agrees it would help create a level playing field and other items for the organization to pay attention. He stated with the Board’s consensus, he could contact Mr. Whittington for the lists of items to be potentially used and not to be used; staff could then draft a revised version and bring it back to the attorney for clarity.

Mr. Blauert stated that is reasonable.

Ms. Daines said the cost reasonably borne piece would result in the most staff work; when SFD considers whether it is better to outsource or perform services in-house, staff must do an analysis and has done
so in the past for ambulance billing and dispatch services; from that perspective, it is not an additional staff burden, but rather, is our responsibility to make sure due diligence is performed when bringing
recommendations to the Board.

Mr. Ayres repeated that taxpayers can draw their own conclusions as to why this resolution is not considered and adopted by the Board.

Mr. Blauert expressed his appreciation for the hard work Mr. Ayres put into this and asked Chief Keller to talk to Mr. Whittington keeping in mind needing to decrease legal fees and update Mr. Ayres; Board consensus was given.

5. Update: Status Report on Performance, Cost, and Management Audit of the Sedona Fire District by RSM-McGladrey. 

Mr. Blauert stated McGladrey’s report is included in the Board’s packets; it contains no findings, but reports McGladrey is working with SFD staff. He said they were very complimentary of SFD staff support to get the project completed and keep costs controlled. Mr. Blauert said he would share all reports with the Board and also wants to keep the public informed. A copy of the report is on the website.

6. Update: Request for E-mail Records of Former-Fire Chief Nazih Hazime, Former-Fire Marshal Will Loesche, and Business Director Daines from Chairman Blauert. 

Mr. Blauert said this has been on-going and he received a huge amount of e-mails from Ms. Daines; he has been informed e-mails from Will Loesche and Nazih Hazime have been deleted. He wants to meet with the IT Technician to discuss satisfying the request.

Ms. Daines asked Mr. Blauert what he was looking for in the e-mails.

Mr. Blauert replied there was a period of time when Insurance Services Organization rating was discussed and he wants to see what the response was to people in Sedona on that area.

Ms. Daines asked him to clarify;

Mr. Blauert said when the ISO issue became controversial and lawsuit threats were made to the Board is the area he is interested in seeing.

Ms. Daines asked why her e-mail;

Mr. Blauert responded because she met with commercial people with Chief Hazime and Will Loesche.

Ms. Daines responded our role in the organization requires they meet with taxpayers who request meetings.

Mr. Blauert requested this item be tabled until he can be further enlightened on what happened by the head of IT;

Ms. Daines said she oversees the IT division and would be happy to answer questions about the system.

Mr. Blauert said he would meet with her and this is public information;

Ms. Daines stated some e-mails are public records;

Mr. Blauert said them being “wiped off” has taken that away from the public.

Ms. Daines stated per State Statute, as a special district, SFD is required to retain e-mails for the period that we deem they are useful, although exceptions include e-mail involved in a legal issue; she said
Mr. Blauert has her e-mails because she just happened to keep them, but typically, when employees leave the organization, there is no further need for their correspondence unless there are items they want to pass on to their successors or subordinates pertaining to on-going district business; she said it would not be common to have those e-mails from many months ago.

Mr. Blauert said he made the request in April;

Ms. Daines said, correct, and at that time, our IT department did the search requested for e-mail correspondence between the three staff members and six business owners and no e-mails existed between those individuals.

~ DRAFT ~ 10/26/11 SFD Board Meeting Minutes / Page 14

Mrs. Erick asked Mr. Whittington if those e-mails are public records; Mr. Whittington said the short answer is “yes”;

Mrs. Erick then asked if there were legal ramifications for someone that deleted those e-mails after a request was made.

Mr. Whittington said it gets more complicated, but there are sub-parts to record retention rules and one of those requires records be destroyed once past useful life; he said he is not able to answer her question “yes or no”, although it is conceivable someone could be held responsible for destroying public records; he said it is not obvious that is the case because e-mails were destroyed and it may well be
it was required certain e-mails be destroyed per the records retention rules; he pointed out he has not been “in the loop” for the request.

Chief Keller reminded them of the technological “explosion” and that Mr. Blauert’s request created 8 reams – one case – of paper to fulfill which is a lot of expensive server space; so, the law has been tailored to allow organizations to delete e-mails because saving them on servers for years is costly.

Mr. Blauert said he is not accusing anyone and made the request and a second one, although there is disagreement it was received; he said he backed it up with an attorney’s request to staff; at the time, it was a heated situation in Sedona and he needed clarification; he said he would meet with Ms. Daines to discuss the system and maybe the Board would never have to consider it again.

VII. STAFF REPORTS AND CORRESPONDENCE.

A. Monthly Staff Report – Fire Chief Terry Keller. 

Chief Keller reported the following:

Cass Crandall and Shane McCormick of Walker and Armstrong in Phoenix are currently conducting SFD’s annual statutory financial audit.

Requested the Board consider a budget “kick off” public workshop on Thursday, 12/8/11, to discuss the Board’s thoughts on the budget process and staff’s forecasts.

Attended Northern Arizona Healthcare’s Current Concepts in Cardiac Care Conference on 10/1/11 highlighting “chain of survival” for successful resuscitation of cardiac patients including citizen CPR, pre-arrival dispatch instructions, dispatcher-instructed cardio cerebral resuscitation, and trends in advanced life support by EMS providers, catheterization lab treatments, post-arrest intensive care unit; a SFD patient successfully resuscitated attended the conference. SFD’s Lead Dispatch Supervisor, Jeff Jennings, was a presenter about the importance of dispatch-instructed CPR to 9-1-1 callers; Mr. Jennings will also give a presentation to other agencies at an upcoming conference in Phoenix; Chief Keller expressed his pride of our Regional Communications Center and Mr. Jennings’ efforts.

Annual Police and Fire Charity Basketball Game will be this Saturday at Mingus Union High School.

Reminded the Board about the economic conference in Flagstaff next month;

Mr. Blauert instructed him to purchase a table, but he would pay for his own seat.

Response statistics since the last Board meeting totaled 362 calls: 28 fire-related, 66 special duty, 218 EMS, 6 technical rescues, and almost 50 interfacility transports. 

B. September Financial Report.

The Board had no questions on the finance report.

C. Fire Marshal’s Safety Message.

Fire Marshal Johnson brought a small space heater to share safety concerns. He said their benefit is to give heat in confined areas, but cautioned they should not be used with extension cords because of fire
danger. He asked all to check their heaters to make sure they have a “kill” switch or thermostat to shut them off if they fall over. He discussed the new “hands only” CPR and how it can be life-saving as, basically, your hands become the victim’s heart while medics are on the way.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT.

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.

David Blauert, Chairman of the Board