CESSA - Region 2 Standards & Protocols Subcommittee Meeting Approved Minutes 07/11/2023

Community Emergency Services and Support Act (CESSA) Region 2 Advisory Committee

Meeting Minutes- July 11, 2-23- 1:00-2:00 via Teams

Meeting Minutes - Approved by Members 09/12/2023

  • Call to Order
    • Meeting called to order by Zachary Gittrich at 1:03 PM
  • Open Meetings Act
    • Read and notified meeting is being recorded.
  • Roll Call & Approval of June 6th, 2023 Minutes
    • Present: Zachary Gittrich, Latricia Seye, Ryan Beck, Michael Kau proxy for Sarah Scruggs, Rhonda Flegel, Meghan Moser, Brian Murphy, Noelle Sliker proxy for Jodie Mahoney, Luke Tomsha
    • Absent: Jamal Simington, Allen Haefner,
    • Guest: Angie Clark
    • Quorum Achieved
  • SAC Updates
    • No updates to report.
  • Proposed Changes to Risk-Matrix
    • Zachary Gittrich proposed adding "LE on stand-by" to Risk Level 2 Dispatch type.
    • Ryan Beck - We don't want LE waiting for an extended period of time for the MCRT to arrive.
    • Rhonda Flegel - as soon as the call goes out, all our units are notified so they are aware the call is going on.
    • Meghan Moser - It would be better to have LE as requested. We wouldn't necessarily need them on stand-by.
    • Ryan Beck motions to change "MCRT Response (EMS if requested)" in Risk Level 2 Dispatch type to "MCRT Response (LE/EMS if requested)"
      • Brian Murphy Seconds Motion
      • Voice Vote: Unanimously in favor
      • Motion Passes
    • Zachary Gittrich - State Level S&P Subcommittee has been discussing changing the language of "florid psychosis" to "Symptoms of mental illness such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking & speech, irrational statements, inability to maintain a conversation". Is this something we'd like to change in our risk-matrix?
    • Ryan Beck - I'm not sure everyone knows what florid psychosis means, and I want it to be as easy as possible for PSAPs to know what's being discussed.
    • Brian Murphy - I don't want dispatchers to have to diagnose someone. No matter how well we train them. Using diagnostic term feels strange to me.
    • Brian Murphy motions to change all instances of "Psychosis" and/or "florid psychosis" to "Symptoms of mental illness such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking & speech, irrational statements, inability to maintain a conversation".
      • Rhonda Flegel Seconds Motion
      • Voice Vote: Unanimously in favor
      • Motion Passes
    • Zachary Gittrich - Should we move "Psychosis while a minor crime (trespassing, disorderly conduct) is occurring, but no victim requesting criminal complaint." from Risk Level 2 to Risk Level 3.
    • Ryan Beck - Are we allowed to make these changes to what's in the risk-levels from what the state determined? We have some PSAPs that are in multiple regions, so may be given different risk-matrixes. My understanding is we were able to make changes to the dispatch type and response type.
    • Zachary Gittrich - My interpretation of the law is the regional committees have the power to change things based on their needs.
    • Meghan Moser - That's a really hard one to decide to change cause there's a lot that goes into those types of calls. It becomes difficult to say that's always how we're going to respond. Especially when it gets into charging decisions.
    • Zachary Gittrich - The reason I originally added this is because part of the goal of CESSA is to deflect from criminal justice system. Changing it to Risk Level 3 could make it easier for LE to inform a charging decision. However, in Risk Level 3, we have the same thing except it is "with a victim requesting a criminal complaint." So, if we moved it to Risk Level 3 we would just remove "with victim requesting a criminal complaint" as it would be irrelevant.
    • Rhonda Flegel - If there's no victim, there's no crime. That's why it should probably stay in Risk Level 2.
    • Zachary Gittrich - Let's table this for now since we seem to have some trepidation about changing this.
    • Zachary Gittrich - Should we move "High level of intoxication w/out aggression, w/out victim complaint, nor committing other offense" from Risk Level 2 to 3?
    • Luke Tomsha - My concern is how do we ensure that when there's drug activity and police involvement that this doesn't lead to increased police surveillance? This could reduce the person's chance of recovery. Often times when police are involved in these situations, people are offered help but it comes with caveats like becoming an informant. I think that could limit trust in these systems.
    • Ryan Beck - I think if EMS is going to respond to this we may as well include LE because these situations can change so quickly. I think any high level intoxication should be in Risk Level 3.
    • Rhonda Flegel - There's really no way to determine over the phone whether someone is "highly" intoxicated or not.
    • Ryan Beck - We're assuming diagnosis/conditions. What the state gave us was actions and things which could be verified. The state already had implied aggression in the risk-matrix they provided. Do we really need to address intoxication? Worries we may be making it unnecessarily complicated.
    • Zachary Gittrich - One of my reasons for having intoxication levels included in the risk-matrix is because being on illegal substances is illegal and a goal of the legislation is to move towards treating drug addiction as a mental health problem rather than a criminal justice problem.
    • Zachary Gittrich - Tabled discussion on intoxication levels.
    • Zachary Gittrich - I'd like to suggest we removed "no uniformed LE (if possible)" from Risk Level 3 because our region does not have plain-clothes officers in the field usually.
    • Ryan Beck - I would support that. I'd also support removing "no lights & sirens (if possible)". Localities are going to have their own protocols they need to follow.
    • Zachary Gittrich - I recommend we change the "no lights & sirens (if possible)" to "Recommended no lights & sirens at scene based on history and/or call details" and also remove "no uniformed LE (if possible)". This would only be a notification, not a dictate. PSAPs would merely be informing responders about known issues/triggers around lights & sirens.
    • Zachary Gittrich motions to remove "no lights & sirens (if possible)" from Risk Level 2 and remove "no lights & sirens, & uniformed LE (if possible)" from Risk Level 3, and replace with "Recommended no lights & sirens at scene based on history and/or call details" in Levels 2 & 3.
      • Latricia Seye seconds motion.
      • Voice Vote: Unanimously in favor
      • Motion Passes
    • Zachary Gittrich - that was all the recommendations I had. We're running out of time. Do we want to continue to review this today or not? Should we move on to the next section? Should we extend the time of the meeting?
    • Angie Clark - I'm not sure based on the OMA we can extend the meeting time.
    • Zachary Gittrich - Do you know what rules of order we're expected to follow?
    • Angie Clark - No, I don't.
  • Next Meeting Date: August 8th, 2023 @ 1PM.
  • Public Comment
    • No comments given.
  • Adjournment
    • Adjourned at 2PM.