FYI:

MVRMA's Strategic Planning Retreat

- Michael Hammond, Executive Director

The work of public officials is usually fast-paced and demanding. By setting aside time for a structured discussion away from the normal work environment, decision makers can take time to focus on issues that might never be examined or addressed otherwise. With this in mind, MVRMA held its Strategic Planning Retreat on May 2, 2005 at the Beavercreek Golf Club. By meeting in a more relaxed environment, we were able to step back from our regular business and explore issues and exchange ideas that take more time than our regular quarterly meetings permit. The retreat was very well attended with 19 of our 20 members represented.

The purpose of our retreat was threefold. We hoped to review progress made to date, set goals for the upcoming year and promote team building. With three new members and several new Trustees, it was important to acquaint everyone with MVRMA’s current goals and objectives before developing future expectations. Having the opportunity to interact during breaks and lunch, we hoped to provide a more comfortable environment that would encourage everyone’s participation.

We were fortunate to have Harold Pumford, CEO of the Association of Governmental Risk Pools (AGRIP), serve as our facilitator. Having served longer than anyone in the pooling community, Harold is affectionately referred to as the "Yoda of Pooling." He was able to share much of his experience with the group.

Prior to the retreat, each Board member completed a survey which asked them to rank the importance and success in achieving each of MVRMA's eight goal statements. During the retreat, we discussed the results of this ranking. Not surprisingly, asset protection, loss control and risk management were ranked 1, 2 and 3 in importance. Asset protection and risk management ranked 1 & 2 in success in achieving, and loss control ranked 5th.

The group discussed why the success in achieving loss control was not as high as its overall importance. The group’s comments included:

l We need to hold members more accountable for loss control and training efforts.

Interestingly, membership development was ranked 6th in overall importance, but 3rd in success in achieving. It was generally agreed the addition of three new members in 2004 resulted in a higher success ranking.

The group then viewed a video entitled "The Abilene Paradox," which was an excellent presentation. It illustrated how group dynamics can propel a project forward when the participants actually see no value in proceeding. In essence, the project takes on a life of its own, and everyone takes the "trip to Abilene" rather than voicing concerns over the project. As a group, we identified the typical reasons this scenario occurs.

Next we reviewed and discussed the the Board's responses to the other questions included in the survey:

1. What do you feel are the strengths of MVRMA?

2. What are MVRMA's weaknesses?

3. What are MVRMA's greatest untapped opportunities?

4. What are the threats to MVRMA?

5. What two or three changes would you like to see MVRMA make during the next two years?

Using this analysis, we then reviewed MVRMA's Mission Statement and concluded it still accurately identifies MVRMA's objectives "to deliver high quality risk management services, long-term financial security, minimization of risks and protection of mutual interests."

Having laid this important foundation, we then spent the remaining time discussing each of the eight goal statements and identifying potential new objectives. A summary of the suggestions for further consideration includes:

l Communication - Consider developing a "MVRMA Road Tour" where staff would conduct an overview session for member employees or department heads to increase their understanding of MVRMA.

l Membership Development - Develop a business plan for growth that defines what is to be achieved in membership development and addresses the impact if members withdraw.

l Education & Promotion - Modify Goal Statement #8 to read: enhance the "members' understanding" of MVRMA rather than the "public's understanding."

All in all, the strategic planning retreat was a very full day. Everyone who attended considered it a meaningful and valuable experience. With the Board’s assistance, staff will now develop and implement new objectives from the group’s suggestions. Working together, we can further advance our mission to deliver high quality risk management services, long-term financial security, minimization of risks and protection of mutual interests.

back to top

Counselors' Comments

 - Dinsmore & Shohl

In late March, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Castle Rock, Colorado. v. Gonzales Doc. 04-0278, Term 04-05. Faced with a tragic set of facts and vast implications for local governments, the Court will decide whether local governments can be sued for failing to enforce restraining orders.

On May 21, 1999, Jessica Gonzales obtained a restraining order limiting her husband’s contact with her and their three daughters. A month later, Gonzales’ three daughters disappeared while playing in the family’s front yard. Suspecting that her husband had the children, Gonzales placed five phone calls to the Castle Rock Police Department and met with Castle Rock police in person twice seeking to have her protection order enforced. At 1:00 am, Gonzales filed an incident report. However, the police department did not take any immediate action to enforce the protection order or locate Gonzales’ estranged husband. Approximately two and a half hours later, Mr. Gonzales arrived at the Castle Rock Police Station and opened fire on the station with a semi-automatic handgun. Mr. Gonzales was shot dead at the scene, and the police found the bodies of the three children in the cab of Mr. Gonzales’ truck. The girls had been murdered by their father earlier in the evening.

Mrs. Gonzales filed suit against the police department and the town alleging substantive due process and procedural due process violations. A substantive due process claim focuses on the official’s or city’s conduct and whether that conduct has deprived a citizen of life, liberty or property. On the other hand, a claim for a procedural due process violation focuses on whether a citizen was afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. The trial court dismissed all of Gonzales’ claims. However, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision as to the procedural due process claims. The 10th Circuit ruled the combination of a protection order and a state statute mandating arrest created a property interest in the enforcement of the order. The Circuit Court held that Gonzales had stated a cause of action under §1983 for a procedural due process claim and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The United States Supreme Court accepted the City’s appeal of that decision in order to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts.

In 1989, a similarly tragic set of circumstances faced the court in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 489 U.S. 189 (1989). That case involved a Wisconsin boy and his mother suing local authorities for returning the boy to his father even though police knew the boy was being physically abused. The boy, four-year old Joshua DeShaney, was comatose and severely brain damaged by the long period of abuse by his father. There, the Supreme Court rejected the substantive due process claim and ruled the constitutionally-given due process rights shielded citizens from governmental abuses but did not require the state to protect citizens from "invasions by private actors," or third parties. The decision, however, left the issue of a procedural due process violation unanswered.

Although not as strongly worded as Colorado’s statute, Ohio has a "preferred arrest" policy regarding domestic violence situations and violations of protection orders, R.C. §2935.03(3). In fact, nearly 20 states have laws requiring an arrest if officers have probable cause that a restraining order has been violated. If the Gonzales claims are upheld by the Supreme Court, police departments and cities in these states would be vulnerable to lawsuits. In addition to determining whether local government can be sued for failing to enforce restraining orders, the Court will also need to define what constitutes an appropriate level of procedural due process, which would in turn effect police procedures throughout the country.

Historically the Supreme Court tends to narrow rather than expand the issues presented for its consideration. This particular case is limited to whether or not the police can be held legally liable for failing to enforce a restraining order. If the Court were to expand the issue, it might well ask, "If the police (law enforcement) fail to perform their duties at the level they’ve promised their publics, can they be held liable?" Numerous briefs were filed by municipalities, police departments and special interest groups in support of both sides of the Gonzales case, and the Court is currently taking this case under advisement.

back to top

The Claims File

- Craig Blair

In a recent article, we addressed how to handle an auto accident involving a third party. Today we will address a claim involving damages to a member's facility.

Scenario: A water pipe breaks in the ceiling of a building. The water goes through an electrical box, a control box and the furnace area. The member's facilities manager should:

1. Secure the area for safety purposes and call the electrical and furnace service providers to check the systems for any problems before the clean up begins.

2. Complete temporary repairs to prevent further damages. Water service should be turned off immediately and plastic sheets put in place to prevent further water seepage that could cause additional damages. While a loss of this type is almost always within MVRMA's retention, we are required by the excess insurance policy to mitigate damages (make temporary repairs) so as not to jeopardize coverage.

3. Report the loss to MVRMA. The Claim Reporting Policy requires the member to report a claim in a complete and timely fashion. In a situation such as this, a call as soon as the problem is detected would be appreciated. The Claims Manager would visit the scene and coordinate with the member how the repairs should proceed and where the invoices should be sent.

In most cases, the member will have a preferred contractor and will arrange for the repairs. If needed, however, MVRMA can handle the entire claim and arrange for the necessary contractors. The member should be aware of the bidding requirements for the work to be done so repairs can proceed legally and without unnecessary delays.

MVRMA will inspect the scene and take the necessary pictures to document the file. If there are damages to personal property (furniture, computers, etc.), these items should be taken to a specified area for MVRMA to inspect before being disposed of.

The clean-up should begin immediately. If necessary, experts will be called to assist with this process.

Once damage estimates are approved by MVRMA and the member, the work will begin (generally within a week after the loss).

The Claim Reporting Policy requires all bills to be processed and paid by MVRMA.

We encourage each member to have written procedures to follow in case of property loss. These procedures should specify who would direct the handling of the repairs and the necessity of reporting the claim to MVRMA.

back to top

Loss Control Lowdown

- Starr Markworth

It's a Life or Death Situation

Ten minutes may make all the difference between life and death. If a loved one or coworker suddenly collapses with a stopped heart, it is critical the heart be restarted in less than 10 minutes. More than 450,000 fatal heart attacks occur each year in the United States, and 95% of the people who suffer a heart attack in the workplace do not survive.

Saving more lives may depend on the arrival and proper use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) and first responder personnel trained to use it. The lifesaving devices are safe, easy to use and a vital part of an emergency response process that the American Heart Association estimates could save 50,000 lives every year.

Fire and ambulance personnel and some police departments are currently equipped with AED’s, but research has established for every minute that passes, the chance for survival decreases by 7-10%. The intent of the AED program is to ensure a person in  cardiac arrest gets help as soon as possible.

Many municipalities are in the process of purchasing AED's and implementing a city-wide program in hopes of having at least one AED in every public building. During a two year study conducted by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association, 124 cardiac arrests occurred in public facilities where an AED was available. Thirty-one percent of those persons survived versus 17 percent of the 86 arrests that occurred in venues where only conventional responses -- CPR and a call to 911 -- were available.

Purchasing an AED is an important first step toward preventing death from sudden cardiac arrest, but equally important is implementing and managing an effective AED program. The following four factors should be considered when developing an AED program:

1. Decide where to place the AED.

2. Train the potential users.

3. Oversee program deployment.

4. Maintain the AED’s.

Certified training is essential to any AED program. The American Heart Association offers training courses in CPR and AED use and recommends that refresher training take place at least every two years.

Please contact the MVRMA office for more information on establishing an AED program or if there is an interest in MVRMA providing training seminars on AED usage.

back to top

Brokers Beat

- Marsh USA Inc.

Negligent Entrustment

The following case involved a private sector employer, but there are certain ramifications that would apply to the public sector employer as well.

The case of Joe Roane Grain Company -vs- McFarland (Tyler Court of Civic Appeals) cited in 381 S.W. 2d 220, points to the clear use of the personal driving record of an employee in seeking punitive damage against the employer on the basis of gross negligence. In this case, the plaintiff alleged the employer was negligent in letting an employee with such a poor driving record (13 violations) drive a company-owned vehicle on the public highway. The Trial Court permitted the driving record to be entered into evidence, but limited such evidence to the effect of gross negligence. The jury then found the employer guilty of gross negligence. The punitive damage award was $24,615 to a 21-year-old man with $420 in medical expense and a whiplash injury. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

In Ohio, because of the governmental immunity statute, a political subdivision cannot be held liable for entrusting a vehicle to an incompetent driver. However, the city could be held liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle by a city employee, and if there is evidence of wanton or reckless misconduct on the part of the employee, the judgment could be taken against the employee as well. Of course, the city would be responsible for paying the judgment against the employee unless the facts established the employee was operating the vehicle outside the scope of his employment and not in good faith.

A political subdivision cannot be held liable for punitive damages as in the case above. However, a city employee can.

A recent survey of the accident and conviction records chosen at random for various groups shows conclusively that as the number of motor vehicle convictions increases, so does the ratio of accidents to drivers increase. In the group with no prior convictions, there were only nine accidents per one hundred drivers. In the two conviction group, there were 41 accidents per hundred drivers, and in the three conviction group, there were 51 accidents per hundred drivers. The four or more conviction group showed an accident rate of 62 accidents per hundred drivers!!!

It’s difficult to understand why a city would turn over equipment valued in the thousands of dollars to an employee without first checking his/her driving record. The insurance industry and legal environment suggest a city should obtain a motor vehicle record (MVR) on all drivers, prior to hire and at least annually thereafter. Formal written criteria should be established and utilized to consistently evaluate MVRs to determine a good driving history from a poor or bad one. The results of the evaluation can be used to screen potential new hire employees and implement actions to take with existing drivers whose record is determined to be less than favorable. The industry does not suggest you dismiss employees with less than good driving records but that you take the proper steps to address their records and more importantly, improve their poor driving habits.

The message from this case, and many others like it, comes through loud and clear. Get the driving records of all who drive for you and review them annually. A little investigation goes a long way...

back to top

Eight Ways to Manage Stress at Work

Workplace stress isn't something that should be overlooked. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, stress-related disorders have become a prevalent reason for worker disability. Here are some ways to manage job stress:

1. Take a break. While it may sound cliche, taking short breaks throughout the day will help you relax. Breathe deeply and prevent stress from overwhelming you.

2. Ask yourself what's wrong. Pinpoint the source of your stress--be it your job, home life or a relationship. It's harder to fix a problem if you don't know the source.

3. Start an exercise program. Exercising releases endorphins, which relieves stress.

4. Learn to let go. There are some things that you can control and some that you can't. Make a list of these two categories and learn to stop stressing over things you can't control.

5. Set short-term goals. A long to-do list can be stressful. Set short-term goals and give yourself credit when you have accomplished those tasks.

6. Don't personalize criticism. While it's difficult, try to turn negative comments into constructive criticism.

7. Share the workload. Don't be stubborn--share projects whenever possible. You'll only create stress if you think you're the only person who can do the job right.

8. Find balance. It's not healthy to focus on work constantly. Create balance by making time for family, friends and hobbies.

-adapted from www.msn.co

back to top

Let's Share Ideas...

As a member of MVRMA, your city is sharing losses with the other 18 members. It is in everyone's best interest to limit those losses as much as possible. We know there must be many safety and/or loss control measures introduced at each of your cities annually. We believe the sharing of these initiatives would benefit everyone.

Every year we conduct our Annual Awards Program. As a part of that process, we ask for nominations for the Innovation Award. This award recognizes the most innovative program or activity related to risk management, safety or loss prevention which was implemented or commenced in the preceding year. It is sometimes difficult for the committee to qualify a nomination because it does not meet all the criteria. We are certain there are some award-worthy ideas out there that have simply become standard operating procedures. What one city may take for granted, another may embrace as the solution to a problem.

The Risky Business newsletter is a perfect forum for sharing your innovative ideas, making suggestions or even requesting help with a particular problem. We don't have to confine our sharing strictly to risk management, safety and loss control. When you institute or become aware of an activity or procedure at your city that produces positive results, please submit it to MVRMA so that we might include it in our next newsletter.