The Cowley County consolidated 911 dispatch center came under scrutiny during a recent meeting of the City Commission of Arkansas City.

After the meeting, Ark City Daily Bytes requested and inspected numerous emails, spinning 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 and a map of the commission districts is located at

Value of ECAB?

The Emergency Communications Advisory Board (ECAB) serves as an advisory board for Cowley County Emergency Communications (CCEC).

It provides an outlet for local first response supervisors to provide professional feedback and suggestions. But it is an advisory board only and its votes do not carry any budgetary authority. The Cowley County Commission and county administrator are responsible for all funding decisions.

At times, this has created some tension between the county fire and police chiefs who comprise a majority of the board, and the county officials on it who make actual budget recommendations to the Cowley County Commission — most notably CCEC Director Carl Fortner; County Administrator Lucas Goff, who also still serves as MIS/GIS coordinator; and Cowley County Emergency Management Director Brian Stone.

One such instance involved a motion by Arkansas City Police Chief Dan Ward, seconded by Ark City Fire Chief Bobby Wolfe, to support funding Mobile Data Terminals (MDT) for the Ark City Police Department. Although the measure passed 7-1, the county declined to authorize the funds.

This apparently caused Ward to question the value of ECAB. In a Aug. 4, 2016, email to Fortner and former county administrator Jeremy Willmoth, who now is the city manager of Winfield, Ward said:

“I was very disappointed in this process and I question why we even meet as an ECAB board. It is clear this decision was made prior to any vote or recommendation of the board. This decision by the county not to continue our mutually beneficial cost sharing was short sighted and the straw that broke the camel’s back” on his decision to scrap using Mobile Data Terminals anymore. (For more, visit

Ward has not attended any ECAB meetings since the July 14, 2016, meeting at which his funding request was denied, although ACPD Capt. Mark McCaslin has been going in his stead.

Feedback from Fortner

Fortner disagrees with Ward about the role and purpose of ECAB, he indicated in multiple emails over the past year.

“(I) encourage Chiefs Wolfe and Ward to remain active in the (ECAB) group,” Fortner said in an email last month to Ark City Daily Bytes. “We value their input, even if we don’t always agree. But they are given a seat at the table.”

He also has expressed a desire for ECAB members to continue to express their opinions.

“Going forward, I hope that we can agree on more than we disagree,” he said in a July 1, 2016, email to other ECAB members. “If not, I hope that you realize that I think enough of your opinion to ask for it.”

In contrast with that statement, though, Fortner shared a slightly different point of view this week.

“CCEC personnel will continue to support emergency responders throughout the county, but we may not always agree with course they try to steer. We value the response community’s input, but also recognize that we are responsible things they are not,” he posted in a comment on the Daily Bytes website.

“Firefighters put out fires. Law enforcement officers enforce criminal law, and Emergency Medical Service personnel render aid to the sick, injured and dying. We don’t tell any of them how to do their jobs, and don’t appreciate it when they try to tell us how to do our’s.”

The rest of Fortner’s statement can be found in the comment section of the prior installment in this series at


Although ECAB was formed in 2013 as 911 dispatch consolidation gained steam, inheriting the work of the 911 Steering Committee, its membership has been in some flux since then. The most notable change was the subtraction of the only EMS representatives on the board.

In February 2016, Stone sent an email to ECAB members about possible ECAB membership changes. Despite the board not holding an official vote, the ECAB group discussed and showed no objections to “many proposed changes,” according to Stone.

“As you all know, Winfield EMS had a member on the Board prior to their consolidation into the Winfield Fire Dept. We need to get that membership issue resolved before voting on all of the amendments,” Stone wrote.

“(Former Winfield fire marshal) Dennis Darby made the recommendation of using their Paramedic that was on shift the day of the meeting as their member. … The Winfield Fire (Department) stated they would prefer that ACFD/EMS only have one member, which would be the Fire Chief and then use their EMS Director as a backup or proxy. They have said that if Ark City’s EMS Director remains on the board they will need a medical person as well.”

“My personal preference is for there to be medical-specific representation on the ECAB,” Fortner chimed in.

“If there is medical community representation on the ECAB, then we can be sure we’re in compliance with the most up-to-date generally accepted medical principles of pre-hospital emergency care delivery. Having paramedics involved in our program should also serve as a hedge against any future requirement to have local medical control provided by a physician. Whether there is more than one medical representative on the ECAB, I’ll leave to the membership. But I do believe there should be medical representation.”

“They could still attend the meetings but wouldn’t need to have a vote,” offered Udall Fire Chief Randy Hoffman, chairman of Cowley County Rural Fire Chiefs Association. “Their vote would be from Chief Wolfe, Just as WFD vote is Chief (Alan) Stoll.”

Former Sheriff Don Read replied that he agreed with Fortner. Hoffman suggested retaining the EMS member from Ark City and giving Winfield Fire-EMS one additional member, too.

“I have spoken with Chief (Wolfe) and we agree that having a Paramedic representative at the meetings is valuable, but that representation really doesn’t require an additional vote,” Stoll said. “This would give Chief (Wolfe) and I the flexibility to bring duty personnel.”

Before the next meeting in March 2016, Stone sent an email reminding ECAB members of the upcoming meeting.

“From the sounds of things, my services are no longer needed so I won’t be at the meeting,” responded Arkansas City EMS Director Jeri Smith.

“I would actually prefer not to be a proxy. Perhaps one of the Shift Captains would be willing to do this in the Chiefs absence.”

Stone noted he had no idea how membership would look going forward. “We’ll see what the group decides as a whole,” he said.

Ultimately, the board decided in March not to have additional EMS members for the two fire-EMS departments, but no one told Smith initially.

“I’m not on ECAB anymore am I?” she asked Stone in an email April 4, 2016. “That is correct,” he replied. “That was done at the last meeting. I apologize as I meant to send a note, but of course, I failed to do so.”

Smith has not attended an ECAB meeting since January 2016 and it is unclear if ECAB has had any paramedic representation since that time.

Future Technologies

Smith’s removal and Ward’s absence have lessened the influence of Arkansas City public safety agencies on the county’s 911 decision-making processes — influence that already was fairly minimal, according to Ward — but nowhere is this more true than on a new sub-committee.

Last July, Fortner announced the formation of the ECAB Future Technologies Sub-Committee (FTSC), according to the minutes of the July 14, 2016, ECAB meeting.

“This group will envelop the Spillman SAA Committee members, and other emergency response community representatives with subject matter expertise on the countywide radio system, the Mass Notification System, the Active 911/CAD interface, and the paging system,” the minutes state. The FTSC meetings were set for two Thursdays prior to each ECAB meeting so sub-committee minutes could be prepared for the board.

The role of Goff at that time was to continue to be as technical specialist on the systems used by CCEC, including serving as a member of the FTSC, but Fortner said Goff would not steer the work of the sub-committee.

Minutes of the sub-committee meetings thus far show that its discussions have been solely between Cowley County personnel and the Winfield public safety agencies. No representatives of either ACPD or ACFD have attended any sub-committee meetings.

There also has been no representation from the rural fire departments of eastern Cowley County, even though the paging system many of them rely upon was cited as a major reason for the formation of the sub-committee in the first place.

Burden Fire Chief Dan McClaskey said in an email dated Sept. 6, 2016, that he “had not heard of such (a) committee or who the members are.”

He also criticized the creation of an additional series of meetings that are more difficult for volunteers to attend than personnel on the clock.

(For more about how the rural fire departments and the paging system, visit

New CAD floated

One major issue being discussed at the sub-committee level is whether to switch to a new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. The current system, provided by Spillman, was purchased a few years prior to consolidation in preparation for the move to a countywide system.

Local officials are concerned about what switching to a new system might cost, both in terms of time and money.

It took months to tie in the current Records Management System (RMS) being used by ACPD and ACFD, and that work could go back to square one with a new CAD.

“Over the past year I have been very displeased with the support and response from the County when it comes to Spillman and mobile CAD,” Ward said in an Aug. 4, 2016, email to Fortner and Willmoth. “The incident where we were unable to enter arrest reports in our RMS for months and we kept getting the run around set our department back and caused extensive back logs. When I finally went around the county and reached out to directly to Spillman, we got the problem solved within a day. As it turned out, it was just a training problem…”

Ward has been an advocate of remaining with Spillman, which he is familiar with from his time with the Lawrence Police Department.

But Fortner disagreed with the idea that the problems were on the county’s end, rather than Spillman’s, and he had strong words on the subject.

“Personally, I can’t stand Spillman software,” he replied to Ward the same day. “I’ve been in public safety communications since 1983, and have been using CAD software and MDT connectivity products since 1993. While you and other police chiefs might be able to get action from Spillman in a timely fashion, those of us on the technical side have considerable difficulty getting support out of them. For example, we have been waiting on Spillman for 2 months to get their mapping up to date… I have never worked with a product as difficult to use as Spillman.”

Fortner admitted that despite his distaste for software, which predated his hiring, the county was committed to using it — but he left the door open to a future change.

“I can tell you from first-hand experience that Spillman is not where it needs to be if they are going to compete in the public safety space,” he said. “Nevertheless, the purchase has been made, and we’ll have to make the best of it for the foreseeable future. With luck, Spillman will put more effort into supporting the products they sell. If it doesn’t improve, I will be the strongest advocate for replacing it as a (CAD) solution.”

But just three weeks later, at a Future Technologies Sub-Committee meeting that Ward did not attend, Fortner initiated a search for a new CAD.

“(Fortner) informed the sub-committee that the Spillman CAD does not meet the requirements of (CCEC),” state the Aug. 25, 2016, FTSC minutes. “He noted that Spillman Tech Support often takes months to resolve issues that should be cleared up within seven to 10 … business days. While most users seem satisfied with the (Joint Records Management System), the base product (CAD) is probably not going to serve (CCEC’s) needs in the long run.”

“Furthermore, while CAD can perform many functions standard in the law enforcement community, it does not handle everything needed for fire and/or EMS,” the minutes continue. “(Fortner) reported that the next APCO Conference (in) 2017 will be held in Denver, and that CCEC will probably send some folks there to meet CAD vendors, and to learn where the industry is going.”

At the Nov. 3, 2016, FTSC meeting, Fortner noted that Spillman had been bought out by Motorola Solutions.

“Neither company has reported what impact — if any — this will have on user agencies,” those minutes state.

“Cowley County may, or may not, benefit from the Motorola acquisition. No additional support issues — besides those already known — were reported.”

There has been no further discussion of looking at a new CAD in either the emails provided to Daily Bytes or minutes of subsequent meetings.

Editor’s note: This is the fifth part of a multi-part series. Prior installments can be viewed at:

One Comment

  1. Thank you Ark City Daily Bytes for continuing to show the community how difficult it can sometimes be to balance competing interests and budget challenges.

    I would like to take this opportunity to expand on a couple of issues raised during your investigation. In 2013, what later became known as the ECAB was doing business as the 911 Steering Committee. But by 2015, members of the group started calling themselves the “9-1-1 Governing Board”. By late 2016 the name had been changed to what it now goes by.

    On some level, Emergency Communications is just another County department. It is staffed by emergency communications professionals that answer to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners (through their department head for emergency communications) must then coordinate their activities with the Kansas 9-1-1 Coordinating Council and the Kansas Highway Patrol’s CJIS Compliance Unit.

    The ECAB does not fit anywhere in the aforementioned chain of responsibility. 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.

    With regard to the exchanges about CAD and the RMS, it should be noted that either package can function without the other. All that is required is an interface between the two. That is to say, the Emergency Communications Department can use whatever CAD product it wants without it adversely affecting RMS. They are two standalone products that have an interface.

    The law enforcement community in Cowley County seems very pleased with the Spillman RMS product. But the Emergency Communications Department doesn’t just serve the interests of law enforcement. We serve the entire response community and we must have a CAD system that is capable of meeting out needs as we try to meet the needs of our stakeholders. I, on behalf of the County and the ECAB FTS will continue to survey the CAD market to see where the product we currently have will be in three to five years. Should the County ever decide to move to a different CAD platform I will personally keep the ECAB and FTS in the loop, but neither I –nor the County Commission– need ECAB membership approval. The only technical requirement will be to ensure that a future product CAD is able to interface with the Spillman RMS.

    I would also like to make a distinction between the responsibilities of a couple of County Departments. Emergency Communications is responsible for processing calls for emergency and non-emergency assistance. To meet that responsibility, we are heavily reliant on technology that is supported by the County’s MIS/GIS Department. While we’re probably the most “mission critical” customer agency that MIS/GIS supports, we are by no means their only customer. And that department often serves agencies even outside the County government. For example, that department –and not mine– is responsible for the interface between CAD, RMS, and –when they had them– Ark City’s MDTs.

    Chief Ward’s complaint was that he felt his agency wasn’t being adequately served by the County’s MIS/GIS shop. This was also a concern expressed by Chief Wolfe regarding his ability to receive “run times”. Because public safety is not the only function that MIS/GIS is required to support, I offered to lead the SAA/FTS group. The goal was –and is– to facilitate faster turnaround times for local product support by a department that is often task-saturated by the number of departments and agencies they support. Public Safety is now seeing faster turnarounds when problems arise. But I don’t do it alone. I get significant help in this regard from really good technical people in Emergency Management, Winfield Fire Department and Winfield EMS. Ark City is not shut out of these processes, but only occasionally are they represented at meetings by their IT staff.

    It’s really unfortunately that an “us against them” mentality has been created over the last year. But, unlike how this story-line has unfolded, there has not been any concerted effort to exclude Ark City from anything. But we’re not going to let Ark City dictate how things are going to be managed either. In my view, Ark City is a valuable member of the Cowley County team, and Cowley County is a valuable member of the Kansas team. But we often have competing interests and responsibilities too.

    I remain committed to the ECAB (of which I am not, and do not want to be, a voting member), but I am a County employee too. I must protect the County’s legal and financial interests, but also try to work with the broader public safety community too. As I noted from the start, government is not easy, and there are often competing interests. The real community benefit being derived from this series of articles is an increased awareness of how hard all government employees work on the public’s behalf.

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *