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 better define the objectives in order to know when we succeed.

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

CALEA Recognition Program

Did you know the MVRMA Law Enforcement Accreditation Reimbursement Policy applies to the CALEA Recognition Program as well as Accreditation? MVRMA realizes all member municipalities may not have the financial or personnel resources available to obtain full CALEA Accreditation. Therefore, both programs were included when the policy was adopted in 2004. By providing financial assistance, MVRMA hopes to encourage participation in these programs.

The benefits of accreditation include controlled liability insurance costs, stronger defense against lawsuits and citizen complaints, greater accountability within the agency, support from governmental officials, increased community advocacy and the recognition for excellence. Risk management studies by state sponsored self-insured pooling organizations indicate accreditation significantly reduces risk factors associated with police operations. These studies report a positive correlation between CALEA accreditation and loss reduction. Accordingly, MVRMA encourages its members to upgrade their police department standards by achieving accreditation through CALEA.

According to CALEA, the Recognition Program may serve as a stepping stone for smaller law enforcement agencies that wish to participate in a professional credentialing program before seeking accreditation. It identifies 97 standards from the 4th Edition of the Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies manual. The standards address (1) life, health & safety issues (2) legal & other critical requirements and (3) conditions that reduce major risk and high liability exposures. Participating agencies comply with those recognition standards that are applicable to their statutory role or mission. An assessment is conducted, and the agency earns the award of "CALEA Recognition." The award period is three years. To continue the award, the agency must maintain compliance, submit an annual report and participate in a re-assessment.

The agency may remain in Recognition status or opt to comply with the appropriate remaining 344 standards and achieve Accredited status, CALEA's highest award.

According to MVRMA's reimbursement policy, MVRMA will reimburse its members a sum of 50% of the Law Enforcement Accreditation fee, not including on-site assessment fees. The maximum reimbursement is $4,000. Interested members must notify MVRMA in writing, on or before September 1, in order to receive reimbursement in the following budget year. Upon receipt of written notice verifying accreditation, re-accreditation or recognition through CALEA and proof of payment for the fee, MVRMA will reimburse the member.

Please contact the MVRMA office or visit www.calea.org to obtain more detailed information on the CALEA Recognition or Accreditation Programs.

back to top

Brokers Beat

- Marsh USA Inc.

Safety in Supervisors' Salary Review

A Formal & Practical Approach

(Part 2)

Last month, this column discussed a formal system for measuring and rating first-line supervisors for safety performance as part of their annual salary review. Part 1 included the first of five objectives that should be included when rating each supervisor - Safety meetings/safety training. The remaining four objectives are included in Part 2.

Safety inspections within a particular department are vital to loss control and overall accident prevention. The inspection form used by each supervisor should be specifically designed for the department being inspected. A formal, monthly inspection may be adequate in one city or department; in others, semi-monthly or weekly inspections may be required. Recommendations for salary review considerations in this category are:

l Submit maintenance requests for those items that cannot be corrected, and follow-up for corrective action.

When an accident occurs, proper accident investigation and problem-solving techniques can significantly aid in preventing future accidents. Supervisors must use correct problem-solving procedures and techniques. Management must ensure that problem- solving results in a safer department.

Supervisors must be measured on how well they conduct accident investigations. They should identify all contributing causes and where possible, make the necessary corrections. Management should then review and sign-off on all investigations. Recommendations for salary review considerations in this category are:

l Were items in need of corrective action accurately listed and/or resolved by the supervisor?

Each member of management must be aware there are far more incidents in the workplace than there are accidents. Incidents can be described as "accidents waiting to happen." Events such as near misses, close calls and damage to equipment or property can all be referred to as incidents. Incidents usually do not cause bodily harm with the exception of those involving minor first aid.

Accidents that cause injury are costly to a city. Occurrences such as property or equipment damage are often even more costly. Daily correction of dangerous incidents, which many people regard as commonplace, must be part of the supervisor's responsibilities. If you have ever heard someone say, "I knew someone would get hurt doing that one of these days," you have just heard reference to an incident. A city should have a formal program that requires recording, reporting and correction of significant incidents.

To help protect a city's or department's budget, enhance productivity and reduce injuries, a city should require each supervisor to:

l Follow-up to ensure corrective action has resolved the problem.

This section of the salary review form requires a subjective judgment by management. If the supervisor has attained high marks in the four previous sections, he most likely has a positive safety attitude.

Recommended measurement items listed in this category:

l Does he consistently enforce safety rules?

Safety performance is only one area of responsibility for salary review considerations. The percentage attached to safety should be equal to management's desire for improvement (20-25% is not unreasonable). Using a formal salary review helps establish objectives and ultimately helps ensure a safer workplace. It also helps simplify management's rating of safety performance and provides the supervisor with firmly established objectives. A formal rating system helps reduce ambiguity, considers the supervisor's accountability for the city safety program and helps lower injury rates and costs.

 back to top