April 22, 1999

Tim Thompson Board Chairman, Josephine County District Attorney, ODAA

Larry Baird Oregon Council of Police Associations

Ed Daniels Oregon Department of Forestry

Terri Dill-Simpson Private Security Industry

Phil Donegan SAC, FBI

Garry Gross Contract Private Security

Lynn Guenther Municipality Administrator, City of Hood River, LOC

Larry Hatch Public Safety Telecommunications, Washington County 9-1-1, ACPO

Louis Lampreht Non-Management Law Enforcement, OPOA

Rick Lewis City of Silverton Police

Robert J. Livingston Fire Fighters Council Member

Stan Robson Benton County Sheriff’s Office, OSSA

James Spinden Washington County Sheriff’s Office, OSSA

Bob Wall Portland Fire Bureau

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:

George Dunkel Board Vice Chairman, St. Helens RFD, OFDDA

Carol Bispham Attorney, Private Citizen Member

Rob Carnahan Clackamas County Fire, OFCA

Jack Carriger Nestucca RFPD, Fire Advisory Committee, OVFA

Dave Cook Director, Department of Corrections

John Courtney LaGrande Police Dept, OACP

LeRon Howland Superintendent, Oregon State Police

Charles Moose Portland Police Bureau

Robert Panuccio State Fire Marshal

NON-BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

Dianne Middle Director, DPSST

Alan Scharn Deputy Director, DPSST

Keri Ashford DPSST

Pat Carroll DPSST

Bruce Chinnock DPSST

Lisa Downer DPSST

Kris Eiesland DPSST

Bill Farr DPSST

Bill Garland DPSST

Carol Halford DPSST

Brian Kauffman DPSST

Theresa Martin DPSST

Don Webb DPSST

Tim Elfstrom Marion County Correctional Facility

Bill Stark Attorney for Tim Elfstrom

Terrie Dierks Josephine County

Marie Hill Josephine County

Bill Kramer Josephine County

Don Balck Oregon State Police

The meeting was called to order by Tim Thompson, Chair.

Tim welcomed everyone and noted that the meeting will be tape recorded.

Approval of the January 22 meeting minutes was deferred to the next board meeting.

1. Plaque Presentation

Plaques were presented to departing Board members. Some were accepted by their replacements.

A. Administrative Rule Changes – Bill Farr

Administrative Rule changes were discussed at the January 22^nd Board meeting. The changes were approved in concept, but the board hadn’t seen the language associated with the rule at that time. The approved changes were given to the Polygraph Advisory Committee to be reviewed where some proposals were made that were then reviewed by the Attorney General. The Polygraph Advisory Committee wanted to replace the word "trainee" with "intern". The terms are defined by statute and require legislative approval to change. The term "trainee" will not be changed at this time, but will continue to be worked on.

B. College Accreditation – Carol Halford

According to OAR 259-08-045, only college credits obtained from an appropriately accredited college or university are allowed. Some individuals come with educational backgrounds gained from outside the U.S. Many professional licensing agencies allow education obtained from a foreign country if evaluated by the National Association of Credential Evaluation Services, Inc. (NACES). Applicants pay to have their foreign credentials evaluated then NACES sends an official evaluation to the referring agency.

The second part of the rule amendment changes some of the acronyms used for accreditation associations to match the acronyms listed in the Higher Education Directory. The acronyms currently listed are incorrect. Carol requested a motion to approve the rule amendment.

DISCUSSION

Question: You’ve done the research on NACES and you’re satisfied that their recommendation matches our own educational standards?

Ms. Halford - Yes, I am. I have talked to many boards besides this one and there are a number of them who use NACES.

A motion was made by Bob Wall to amend the rules to allow for foreign education to be used for certification purposes if evaluated by a NACES evaluator and approved by the Department and that the rules be amended to change the acronyms used for the accreditation associations to match the acronyms listed in the Higher Education Directory (which is used by the Department to determine appropriate accreditation of various schools). The motion was seconded by Terri Dill-Simpson. The motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Halford explained that this does not require a hearing. Notice of intention to file a rule change is sufficient and unless there are more than ten people who want to give oral testimony, the change can be filed.

C. Multi-Discipline Certification – Carol Halford

The rule needs to be expanded. The term multi-discipline is not defined in the rules. It seems appropriate to clarify the rule on multi-discipline certification to show the different annual requirements. The following items have been added:

EMD’s = 4 hours of training; current CPR and first aid

Telecommunicators = 12 hours of training

All other disciplines = 20 hours of training in each discipline

DISCUSSION

Question: So there’s a continuing requirement in each discipline?

Ms. Halford - Yes, that is correct. Each discipline has been added separately to clarify the rule.

A motion to amend OAR 259-08-060(17) to show the difference in annual training requirements for multi-discipline certification was made by Garry Gross. The motion was seconded by Rick Lewis. The motion passed unanimously.

D. Tracking Multi-Discipline Certificate Holders – Carol Halford

The second issue with multi-discipline certification is tracking individuals who have multi-discipline certificates. Currently it is a difficult process. Standards and Certification has set up a procedure to process renewals on the same date each year – July 1. They have 90 days before they lapse, so no action would actually take place until after October 1. Letters to both individuals and agencies will be sent out to individuals needing renewal. It is not something that will be done for the other disciplines because they don’t require yearly review.

E. Amendments to the Private Security Rules – Bruce Chinnock

This was presented at the January 22^nd Board meeting. DPSST was directed by the Board to start a process on permanent rulemaking and make significant changes to the private security rules. The Board asked to have them filed as temporary rules. That was done on February 19^th. Bruce Chinnock acted as hearings officer on behalf of the Board and the Director, DPPST. There was relatively little comment. Two letters were received and one individual testified in person. The oral testimony was in favor of the rule change. No requests for any changes were received. The written testimony has some concerns about how stringent that type of security training and requirements should be but doesn’t address anything in the proposed rule. The other letter doesn’t have any comments relative to the proposed rule changes. Mr. Chinnock concluded that nothing came out of the hearings that would cause the need for any changes to be made. He recommended the Board permanently adopt the temporary rules and that they be filed as permanent.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Livingston stated that this was his first chance to read the testimony and see the letters and was somewhat uncomfortable about making a vote based on such a short time. Mr. Gross noted that the issue came before the Private Security Advisory Committee. All the documents were reviewed and unanimously agreed upon before it was brought to the Board in January.

Motion to adopt the temporary rules as permanent was made by Larry Hatch. The motion was seconded by Bob Wall. The motion carried unanimously.

F. Waiver for Timothy R. Elstrom – William Stark

Mr. Stark was introduced as Mr. Elfstrom’s attorney. Mr. Stark told the Board that they hadn’t been provided with all the information necessary to make a decision on Mr. Elfstrom’s case. He requested the matter be held over to the next Board meeting in order to allow adequate time to review the information and requested that the Board waive the one-year standard. The Board agreed that they would consider Mr. Elfstom’s request for waiver at the next meeting and that barring any other reason for not completing the training, they would waive the one-year requirement for certification.

G. Waiver of William Kramer – Don Webb

Mr. Kramer was diagnosed by a physician that determined he cannot perform duties as a law enforcement officer. Marie Hill, Josephine County Corrections, was notified that his application to attend the academy was going to be denied. She requested we obtain further medical evaluation. Dr. Kenneth Brown, Mr. Kramer’s physician, was contacted. He was provided a list of the physical requirements for a parole/probation officer trainee, given parole and probation officer tasks, and asked to evaluate whether or not Mr. Kramer can perform these related tasks. We are concerned about his inability to protect himself from attack from the right. Our recommendation is to deny the waiver for officer and public safety reasons.

DISCUSSION

Ms. Hill from Josephine County Corrections stated that Mr. Kramer received injuries to his right arm when he was a police officer in Anchorage, Alaska. He still suffers from range of motion problems in his right arm and lack of ability to grip with his right hand. She said that Dr. Brown’s letter dated February 8, 1999 says "As we notified Josephine County, the patient does not meet criteria of a sworn officer. The issue is of reasonable accommodation. You would be a better judge to know if limitations of climbing, inability to fire a weapon with his right hand, and sustained strength maneuvers in abduction greater than 90 degrees would preclude him from being reasonable accommodated at the academy." Josephine County has made accommodations to employ Mr. Kramer as a home detention officer. His functions in the department are to assess offenders for appropriateness in the home detention program, to monitor their compliance with the program, to monitor the electronic equipment, and to make field contact in the company of another probation officer. Josephine County policy is that probation officers go into the field in pairs. In Josephine County, some officers are armed and some are not. Mr. Kramer would not be an armed officer. Furthermore, because home detention officers deal primarily with minimum risk offenders, it would not be a position where they would encourage an officer to be armed. Since Mr. Kramer was hired last October, no problems have occurred as a result of his disability. Josephine County feels they have made accommodations where the risk of confrontation is minimal and requests the Board grant a waiver of the physical qualifications.

Josephine County says they would never assign Mr. Kramer duties as anything other than a parole and probation officer. Their Risk Management Department supports the decision.

There was considerable discussion that if a waiver were granted it would apply throughout the state. Parole and probation officer duties differ from agency to agency. Ms. Middle brought up a bill (SB 685) which is currently being considered that would allow for part-time parole and probation officers, which if passed would eliminate the need for this waiver request. Ms. Middle stated that if a waiver were granted, he would be certified as a full, complete parole officer. No contingency would be placed on the waiver. Mr. Baird argued that there are sworn law enforcement officers at the Portland Police Bureau that don’t meet the standard and Mr. Robson stated that many candidates would be found lacking in the area of self defense as well. Mr. Robson moved that Mr. Kramer’s waiver be granted. Mr. Baird seconded the motion. The vote was taken by hand count. The motion was carried by count of seven in favor, six opposed, and one abstention (Mr. Thompson).

H. Revocation and Recertification of a Person Discharged for Cause – Bill Farr

This was discussed at the January 22^nd meeting. There have been several instances where this has occurred since. No direction was established in January other than that Deschutes County might bring forth legislation to amend the statute to allow some change. The statute says that if a person is discharged for cause and their certification is revoked at that point, they can reapply for certification within four years. It does not address if they are discharged for cause and there is no revocation. The legal interpretation is that if there is no revocation at that point, certification isn’t an issue, you can’t recertify. It seems to be 180 degrees from where it needs to be.

Mr. Thompson asked if Standards and Certification needed guidance from the Board. Mr. Farr stated that changes to the statute are two years away and he’s not looking for an immediate solution. He will provide the Board a position paper and recommendations for future needs.

A. Minimum Pre-Hire Reading and Writing Standards

In February, the Police Advisory Committee discussed pre-hire screening for reading and writing competency. There is concern about the ability of officers to use simple sentences and paragraphs and write meaningful reports. The level of pre-hire education is not an accurate indicator if they will be competent writers. There is a program that is a standardized packaged pre-hire screening for the ability to assess situations and write reports. There is also an addition to the program for corrections officers which assesses counting ability. It costs about $10,000. The direction from the Police Advisory Committee was that the Board examine this as a potential tool to screen all applicants.

DISCUSSION

Chief Lewis said that he had expressed a concern at the Police Advisory Committee meeting that if it’s going to done, it should be done at the pre-hire stage so there is some assurance that at least by the time an individual gets to the academy he or she will be able to succeed.

Part of the Advisory Committee discussions centered around the idea of having some sort of entry level test at the academy when they arrived to determine reading and writing proficiency. If we have a statewide standard that it is a pre-hire requirement I think it would be incumbent upon the agencies to make sure their people can pass it. The issue is whether this should be left to the agency to decide or if a minimum statewide standard should be established.

Mr. Garland said that this should be an issue for the May Police Advisory Committee meeting.

B. Portland and Eugene Pilot Basic Police Academies

In the past, the academy has had health and fitness programs for several hours. Each basic course is comprised as a pre-test to assess fitness levels based on different factors. These are absolutes that aren’t really job related. There wasn’t a lot of task specificity that applied in our physical fitness training. There was some classroom discussion on lifestyle, which was very valuable and then there was a post test. We didn’t have anything in between to develop officers and to get them thinking in terms of the kind of fitness they needed in order to carry out their jobs. The National Institute of Justice has partnered with other agencies in the U.S. and Canada to study this. Canada uses an obstacle course. It’s very task-oriented and job specific. It is a series of events that have to be surmounted and gone through within a certain period of time. We think it’s got some real merit in the sense that it gives the officers something to work towards that is really job-related and can help them do their jobs better. It has been tested extensively by agencies that are using it and they swear by it. It really is a good indicator and preparation for the officers before they go into the field. We’re working to set up and modify the obstacle course here at the academy. We don’t have enough space to actually implement the complete course as it’s modeled by RCMP, but we’re going to a trial one for a couple years to see how it works. We’ll report back to the advisory committees and the Board on the results.

4. Corrections Advisory Committee Report – Stan Robson and Bill Garland

Mr. Robson stated that an item discussed at the February meeting was recertification training for out-of-state and returning officers, if they would need to take the complete course or only a modified portion. They are still looking at what should or shouldn’t be done. Other areas talked about were corrections curricula and its being revamped.

Mr. Garland said that the Advisory Committee met with the Oregon Jail Managers Association in February. There has been an expectation on the part of the jail managers that there would be an increase in the number of hours due to the fact that the classes are being enhanced and expanded. This causes the same dilemma we have with the Basic Corrections Course and the Basic Police Course. There is not enough room at the end. The academy’s schedule is very tight. Additionally, the Department of Corrections has based its overtime budget on the assumption that its officers will be here for a five-week course. They are our largest customer for basic corrections officer training. They will have trouble making an adjustment to increase the number of weeks.

The good news is that the academy is keeping up with current demand. The new manuals for parole and probation officers have been in use since January. There is an optional fifth week for parole and probation for firearms. It is mandated by some agencies and is optional for others. There is the capability to expand especially since Camp Adair is able to expand. The Advisory Committee needs help from the Board on replacements for the committee. Several members are leaving.

A. Budget Report

The Governor has signed the DPSST budget for the 1999-2001 biennium. It has two particular budget notes. These have to do with facilities and funding. One requires the Department of Administrative Services to work with DPSST to develop a timeline for facilities planning. They also have to assist us in finding additional funding sources. An interim session committee may be appointed to look at the unitary assessment. As of right now there are four bills that are attacking it, so even though the budget is out, there is still the potential to lose funding. There has been initial discussion to pull together workgroups for facilities and funding representing our various constituencies. The budget includes continued funding for the Western Community Policing Center through the COPS grant. The issue is how to continue the process when the federal funds dry up.

Senate Bill 345 allows us to open up the possibilities of the way we train by looking at different partnerships and methodologies. Significant amendments have been worked out that will allow it to move forward. There were issues that something other than accredited colleges or universities might be used to conduct our training and that non-law enforcement, non-corrections people might be training or doing the skills. Another issue had to do with self-sponsored training. It was made very clear that it could not be dealt with this biennium and that the rest should be moved forward. It should be on its way to the House.

Senate Bill 346 has to do with extensions and signatures on orders. These are functions that the Department was actually doing versus the Board. They were missed in the last legislative session when we made the transfer to an agency. These have passed through both houses and are awaiting signature of the Governor.

Senate Bill 347 removes the fire equipment definition from our section. All of that is currently under the fire marshal anyway. It passed the Senate and is waiting for action on the House side.

Senate Bill 348 clarifies and allows for minimum standards for telecommunicators and emergency medical dispatchers. It now has the exact same language as the rest of our disciplines. The primary concern had to do with medical standards. Now they have the ability to address the same standards as all the other disciplines. It is waiting for hearings on the House side.

Senate Bill 349 excludes people who serve by virtue of their office from going through the confirmation process. This has also passed and is awaiting the Governor’s signature.

Senate Bill 23 – Oregon Youth Authority privatization and Senate Bill 1247 – Department of Corrections privatization. Both have a training component and say DPSST will start training the private provider people as well. There is no funding attached. It also requires less training and reduced standards for people doing those jobs as private vendors versus the state.

Senate Bill 685 allows part-time parole and probation officers. The language was corrected to say that if you’re a certified full-time officer and you’ve worked in that capacity for a year, you can reduce your hours to be part-time and still be certified. The intent is to allow people who are already certified as parole and probation officers to come back after a leave of absence as part-time and remain certified. I anticipate it will now go through.

Senate Bill 820 requires that the Director of DPSST receive Senate confirmation. That has passed out of the Senate and is moving to the House. The concern expressed in testimony is that the current process for this selection is different from any other state agency head. It allows the constituents and this Board to select the person they want. Currently, the Board recruits and selects three candidates to go to the Governor. The Governor selects from these three. This bill opens up the possibility of anyone on the Board or outside the Board not agreeing with the selection to undermine it by putting it into the political process. It could leave the agency without a director for a significant period of time.

DISCUSSION

There was a question as to who initiated the bill. Ms. Middle stated that it came from OPA, FOPPO, AFSCME, and OPEU. Mr. Baird said it came from the Oregon Council of Police Associations, Oregon State Firefighters, and AFSCME. Mr. Baird and Mr. Livingston stated they felt Senate confirmation was just one more step to go through and it wouldn’t present an obstacle. Other Board members questioned the need to add one more layer to the process when there doesn’t seem to be any purpose for it. Mr. Livingston said there are concerns and frustration from law enforcement and police officers and fire fighters in regards to some of the budgetary constraints and the lack of communication between the Director and constituencies and that of serving the needs of not only the employers but the employees. He said the Senate confirmation process is an important component for anyone that’s going to be a director of a large state agency such as DPSST, particularly when dealing with so many groups. By involving the Senate, perhaps some of this could be mitigated. Mr. Wall stated that he appreciates the apolitical nature of the Board and, for the most part, how the agency operates. While it reports to the Governor, there isn’t a lot of partisan politics. His opinion is the more apolitical it can be kept, the better. He recommended opposing the bill.

C. Report on Portland and Eugene Pilots Projects

Both are going well. There are surprising new challenges for each of them. They’re very pleased with the process and that we’re doing it. Some issues have come up with how to maintain standards and consistency when training in different arenas. These are the very kinds of questions we hope to answer through this pilot process. It’s also been a little more challenging because of the fact that we are working with our enhanced police curriculum and we are constantly working on adding courses. We’ll report back once they finish up. I think we then need to have some serious discussion about what those pilot projects presented and get some guidance for how we’re going to do some training in the future.

D. Discussion of Director’s Evaluation

In accordance with ORS 181.635(5), "The board shall annually evaluate the director’s implementation of policies, standards and minimum requirements for public safety certifications and training, reporting to the Governor the results of the evaluation." It has never been done before, but needs to be. Ms. Middle suggested that she could provide the board a list of what has been accomplished in terms of implementation of policies, standards and minimum requirements to help with the review.

Question: Is this something the Executive Committee could put together?

Mr. Thompson – Yes, they could. We haven’t really ever fallen upon a good way to do this. I’m not sure if this is one of the statutes that was changed when we went from a board to a state agency. It seems it is. It’s limited to policies, standards and minimum requirements. The old statute, if I recall, was much broader. I would suggest either the Executive Committee or we appoint interested parties from the Board. Right now it would be a retroactive look back, but it might be that in the future we want to set some standards and then see if performance measures up to them. It was decided that some combination of the Executive Committee and interested parties would be assembled to complete the evaluation.

E. Preparation for Year 2000 Impact

There are training classes that will start up at the beginning of January. The question will arise as to whether public safety providers are going to not want to have people in classes, if they’re going to want their full forces available to them. The other issue is that PESETS is typically held about the third week in January. Consensus of the Board was to keep things the same.

A. Report on Withdrawals of Suspensions – Alan Scharn

Mr. Scharn stated that the academy has decided to keep statistics on withdrawals and suspensions to let constituents know that DPSST’s philosophy has changed. These situations are taken very seriously and all are investigated thoroughly. There is a perception that anyone who is sent to the academy makes it through. This undermines the work that is being done and the fact that the Board has set some stringent standards that need to be met. Perhaps by providing the Board with this information, the misconception can be eliminated. Consensus of the Board was that the report was very helpful and would like to see it continued.

B. Proposed Two Rivers Correctional Institution and Blue Mountain Community College Pilot Basic Corrections Academy – Bill Garland

The institution is under construction. There have been some construction delays as well as some staffing delays. DPSST was originally working with the prison staff as well as Blue Mountain Community College to put an academy on for their first hires in August of 1999. It has now been pushed back to September or November. The partnership is off to a pretty good start. It will be a partnership reminiscent of what went on in Ontario with TVCC and Snake River Correctional Institute. We believe the instructor cadre can be drawn from local resources at the prison as well as Eastern Oregon Correctional Institute. We will continue to provide progress reports.

C. Basic Corrections Curriculum Progress – Brian Kaufmann

A couple of issues are on the table right now. One is how long the basic corrections curriculum is going to be. The other is revising and getting the current curriculum up to speed. The process has been underway for about a year and a half. A lot of progress has been made. The five-week curriculum will be revised and updated. These changes will be implemented in July with the next classes that are coming in. We will be going through a major revision of what we have currently in the five weeks to address those issues and be sensitive to those new classes that have been proposed and work on ways to get those in as well.

7. Chairman’s Issues – Tim Thompson

Several Board positions will be vacated, including the chair and vice chair. The lobbying for those positions should begin. There’s no procedure to select a chair or vice chair. Lobbying can be done individually, by a nominating committee, or by some other means. This should be considered between now and the July Board meeting. Ms. Middle noted that when the statute changed, term limits were imposed for Board members. She suggested that DPSST develop a form of interest to send out to Board members to fill out and send back in. This list would be compiled and given to the Executive Committee.

Mr. Thompson made the following comments: I have been with this agency for eleven years. I have the utmost respect for the personnel at this agency, the Board members that have served, it takes a lot of dedication on everyone’s part to make this work. For the majority of years I have been associated with this agency, it has been understaffed and underfunded. The people who have managed to keep this place afloat have done a tremendous job that speaks volumes about their integrity and their abilities. I have the utmost respect for this agency and I want to thank everyone for having the opportunity to work with you.

Ms. Middle thanked Mr. Thompson on her behalf and on behalf of the staff for his years of dedication and support both at the agency and at the legislature.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:10.