After the meeting, Ark City Daily Bytes requested and inspected numerous emails, spanning more than a year and a half, from local government officials in order to verify claims made that night. The findings of this investigation are shared in this and future stories.
Citizens interested in speaking out on this issue are urged to contact their county commissioner. Contact information can be found at www.cowleycounty.org/commission and a map of the commission districts is located at www.cowleycounty.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Commission_Districts.pdf.
Command and control
In researching the oversight of Cowley County Emergency Communications (CCEC), the function of the Emergency Communications Advisory Board (ECAB) was examined.
Two conflicting opinions are given on the subject in emails from CCEC Director Carl Fortner and those requested from the City of Arkansas City.
On several occasions, Fortner said the Emergency Communications Center falls under the direct purview of the Cowley County Commission.
“I am a direct report to the County Administrator, and he is a direct report to the Board of County Commissioners,” Fortner explained in an email Feb. 20.
“The ECAB does not fit anywhere in the … chain of responsibility,” Fortner added in a comment last week on a prior entry in this series, “EMS removal from ECAB, sub-committee formation raise questions.”
“The ECAB can — and should — serve as an advisory body, and a platform for emergency communications to receive feedback from the response community, but the County — and emergency communications — can function just fine without an ECAB,” Fortner states.
However, Arkansas City Police Chief Dan Ward said he has received a differing opinion from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
“The ECAB board is required by federal and state guidelines for (Criminal Justice Information Systems), as well as the Law Enforcement Sub-Committee, which must maintain control according to these guidelines,” Ward said Feb. 23.
As City Manager Nick Hernandez said during the Jan. 17 City Commission meeting when this matter first arose, the issue boils down to who actually has — or should have — “command and control.”
Oversight outlined in policy
Part of the issue concerning oversight has to do with liability. One aspect of that has to do with the computer records kept for all 911 calls.
“When a County Emergency Communications employee enters, incorrectly enters, or fails to enter any information into the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, I am ultimately responsible,” Fortner said in a Jan. 17 email to Ward and other area law enforcement officials.
In that email chain, Ward said it actually is the various law enforcement agencies in Cowley County who would be liable for their information.
“The data you collect and put in the CAD call belongs to the responding law enforcement agency … Before your arrival here in Cowley we reached an agreement with Jeremy (Willmoth, former county administrator) that the data in CAD belongs to the responding law enforcement agency. There are written, signed agreements which remove any liability from your agency,” Ward said to Fortner.
“Part of that agreement is that your agency and your employees are not allowed to disseminate any of our information without our approval. If you should receive an open records request for information on a call such as this, your agency would simply notify the responding law enforcement agency and they will handle the open records request.”
An agreement entitled “Kansas Criminal Justice information System Management Control Agreement For Consolidated Dispatch Centers,” was signed by former sheriff Don Read, Winfield Police Chief Danny Parker, Ward, Winfield Fire Chief Alan Stoll, Arkansas City Fire Chief Bobby Wolfe and then-CCEC Director Beth Leach on Feb. 2, 2014.
This agreement is a standardized form that can be found online at https://cjisaudit.khp.ks.gov/launchpad/cjisdocs/docs.cgi?cat_id=1&auth=1&uid — it is labeled KCJIS Form 135.
The agreement needed to be amended to reflect the hiring of Fortner, according to ECAB meeting minutes dated March 10, 2016.
Management Control Agreement
“Management control” is a key concept that pops up repeatedly in state and federal documents pertaining to 911 administration. The concept does not necessarily refer to the direct management of employees, which clearly is the responsibility of Cowley County.
Rather, “management control” is more about how criminal justice information, such as criminal history or driver’s license information, is handled by non-law enforcement agencies, such as dispatch centers, that are not — by themselves — authorized to handle or access that information.
The local Management Control Agreement outlines what policies the dispatch center should adhere to while working with criminal justice information, as well as what entity should have control over CCEC priorities, standards and policies related to such information.
The first item in this agreement states that CCEC agrees to comply with, among other policies, the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Security Policies. Another section of the contract addresses what entity should have management control over CCEC.
In addition to three other items, CCEC also “agrees to operate under the management control of … A governing board — without a majority (of members) representing criminal justice agencies — with a sub-committee entirely of criminal justice representatives with oversight concerning the following issues:
- “Priorities — any measures necessary to provide the criminal justice community with priority service.
- “Standards — necessary to ensure that whoever selects, supervises and terminates personnel adheres to safeguards required to maintain the integrity of criminal justice systems and networks.
- “Policies — governing the operation of computers, circuits and telecommunications terminals used to access criminal justice systems and networks.”
The current composition of ECAB matches the description of a governing board without a law enforcement majority — law enforcement members comprise about half, or slightly less, of its membership — that has a Law Enforcement Sub-Committee for these specific issues.
Kansas Highway Patrol
In January 2015, Ward began asking questions about several aspects of CCEC oversight.
The ECAB minute notes from Jan 8, 2015, say he asked about a specific policy concerning information exchange agreements, one of the documents mentioned in Form 135.
“A NCJA (Non-Criminal Justice Agency) designated to perform criminal justice functions for a CJA (Criminal Justice Agency) shall be eligible for access to the (criminal justice information),” Page 16 of the form states.
“Access shall be permitted when such designation is authorized pursuant to executive order, statute, regulation, or inter-agency agreement. The NCJA shall sign and execute a management control agreement with the CJA.”
Ward recommended seeking an interpretation of this policy from Don Cathey, information security officer for the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) CJIS unit. The ECAB met next on Feb. 12, 2015, with Cathey in attendance.
There is a provision for criminal justice information to be accessed by a non-criminal justice agency, according to the minutes. But KHP policy states a Public Safety Answering Point such as CCEC has access only through an agreement that shows Criminal Justice Agency oversight.
The minutes state Cathey said CCEC had all of the necessary documents in order — a county resolution, a charter or bylaws and an interlocal agreement. One of the forms might have to be updated to reflect the charter, he indicated, but that was not a major hurdle.
“According to KHP, we are currently in compliance with requirements,” the minutes state. “Ultimately, decisions regarding the controlled dissemination of (criminal justice information) must be made by the law enforcement subcommittee of the ECAB.”
While KHP is satisfied with the legality of the current setup, there remains some question about the interpretation of federal law.
In an email sent from Ward to Jeff Campbell, assistant information security officer for the FBI, Ward posed an additional question regarding the management structure of CCEC.
“Does the county — Commission and Administrator — qualify as a criminal justice agency as defined by CJIS policy? If it does not, what are our options?” Ward asked. “Changing the management control to a law enforcement agency such as the Sheriff’s Office or giving management control to the 911 advisory board? If they do qualify as a criminal justice agency, do we need to develop a management agreement and have it in place or does the inter-local agreement suffice?”
The answer from Campbell was received 11 days after Ward reached out to him.
“To address your question near the bottom of your email ‘Does the county — Commission and Administrator — qualify as a criminal justice agency as defined by CJIS policy?’ The answer is no,” Campbell said.
“The commission — and administrator — would not meet the definition of a criminal justice agency.”
Campbell referenced Section 3.2.4 of the FBI CJIS Security Policies, which states: “a (criminal justice agency) is defined as a court, a governing agency, or any sub-unit of a governing agency which performs the administration of criminal justice pursuant to a statute or executive order and which allocates a substantial part of its annual budget to the administration of criminal justice.”
Campbell also addressed the use of a “911 advisory board” for such oversight.
“In 2013, the Advisory Policy Board (APB) entertained a topic paper to ‘Recognize Local Governing Boards and Affirm Their Authority for Oversight of Non-Criminal Justice Agencies Performing Criminal Justice Functions on Behalf of Criminal Justice Agencies.’ After much discussion, the APB rejected the notion so those boards would have no standing as (non-criminal justice agencies),” Campbell said.
“If you have a consolidated 911/Dispatch center, that center on its own would meet the definition and agreements would be executed between their center and each (criminal justice agency) utilizing their services.”
“Management control will always remain with the (criminal justice agencies),” Campbell emphasized.
FBI supports Ward
Ward asked for further clarification on two points:
- If the law enforcement agencies completed management control agreements, would the law enforcement agencies then have collective control over management decisions for CCEC?
- If CCEC meets the requirement to be defined as a criminal justice agency, how would that affect the management control?
“Each … law enforcement agency would have a management control agreement (MCA) with the center,” Campbell said. “In theory, since the services provided by the center are the same for each agency, changes would affect each one equally and would be the same across the board.”
The only different would be if the MCAs contained different levels of service, Campbell writes, in which case the sheriff’s office takes priority.
Campbell said the control would not be “collective management,” but rather management control over individual services as spelled out by the management control agreement.
“The MCA is intended to make the (dispatch center) consult the criminal justice agencies before making decisions on items addressed in the MCA,” he said. “The (criminal justice agency) does have to ‘approve’ in some manner which is important and necessary as the (criminal justice agency) is the one being held responsible for any non-compliance.”
According to the answers provided, the 2014 ECAB management control agreement contains some language not approved by the FBI CJIS.
“As you can see, the governing body is not allowed to have managing authority and that authority must remain with a criminal justice agency,” Ward said in an email to Cowley County Emergency Management Director Brian Stone.
“The current MCA not only inappropriately has the board set up as having managing control, it also does not specifically address the (below) listed requirements,” Ward said.
“This directly answers the issue that originally brought up the question. The release of CAD data pertaining to (the Arkansas City Police Department) cannot be done without my approval. It is not a decision of the dispatch center, County Administrator, or County Commission.”
Editor’s note: This is the sixth part of a multi-part series. Prior installments can be viewed at:
- Part 1: Consolidated 911 dispatch issues highlighted in series of public emails — http://wp.me/p7A1jR-2AH
- Part 2: Vote on MDT software exposes schisms on 911 ECAB advisory board — http://wp.me/p7A1jR-2B2
- Part 3: Request for increased officer safety turns into dispatch funding discussion — http://wp.me/p7A1jR-2Ek
- Part 4: Friction seen in disputes between county, rural fire over call sign, pagers — http://wp.me/p7A1jR-2GO
- Part 5: EMS removal from ECAB, sub-committee formation raise questions — http://wp.me/p7A1jR-2HQ