Shelby County Dive Team Roster Mystery – Workers Compensation Solution?

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

The Shelby County Dive Commander, Austin Prichard, has refused to provide a roster of the members of the dive team after it was requested by the forensic auditors.  We understand there are now two separate FOIA denials being reviewed by the Attorney General PAC office over the same issue, a roster of the dive team members.

While we have no clue why such a refusal to provide such basic information is taking place now, we know that we obtained the roster for 2021 and 2022 in our FOIA request in June of 2023.  We must note we have not heard a peep out of the local mouthpieces regarding this lack of production of the current roster.

Considering the SOPs at the time required the members to have a physical fitness test we simply asked for those test results, presto, a roster of the members. Since this training is a requirement, we believe it’s safe to assume this is in fact a true and accurate roster of the members of the dive team in 2021 and 2022.

Public Safety Committee Chairman Tad Mayhall was asked to provide the roster for the forensic audit.  Rather than providing it, he wanted to know why they needed it.  While we can think of a few reasons, the point is the auditor asked for it and there is no valid reason to not provide it. It is our understanding it has not yet been provided.  Failure to provide it will surely be another finding in the audit that does nothing but make future audits even more expensive as it points to an unwillingness to cooperate with auditors.

We have said for years there are answers to everything as it relates to local government, but it does take time and research to get them. Many times research on one subject matter opens the door to answers on another matter.  Such is the case here.

Considering the ongoing turmoil with the Dive Team insurance, specifically the workman’s compensation coverage, it might be wise for Mayhall to follow the suggestion of the lawyer.

“We recommend that the county consult with competent employment counsel for advice on this specific topic.”

What does insurance have to do with the roster?  During our research on matters in this article, the AG letter pointed to certain case law. That case law dealt with the workman compensation of volunteer firefighters.  What was one of the items pointed out in the court’s ruling?

“The claimant, Kenneth Scott, was regularly employed as district manager for an insurance company with earnings between $6,000 and $7,000 per year. He was also a volunteer fireman listed on the village roster,…” (emphasis added)

That case goes on to explain the parameters which were identified to affirm the court’s ruling that the volunteer firefighter was in fact covered under workers’ compensation laws.

No, we are not attorneys, let alone labor law attorneys, but we can read the Workers Compensation Act and understand how it is applied by the courts in their rulings.  More often than not key points in case law can answer important questions.

820 ILCS 305/1 (b) The term “employee” as used in this Act means:
    1. Every person in the service of the State, including members of the General Assembly, members of the Commerce Commission, members of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission, and all persons in the service of the University of Illinois, county, including deputy sheriffs and assistant state’s attorneys, city, town, township, incorporated village or school district, body politic, or municipal corporation therein, whether by election, under appointment or contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, including all members of the Illinois National Guard while on active duty in the service of the State, and all probation personnel of the Juvenile Court appointed pursuant to Article VI of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, and including any official of the State, any county, city, town, township, incorporated village, school district, body politic or municipal corporation therein except any duly appointed member of a police department in any city whose population exceeds 500,000 according to the last Federal or State census, and except any member of a fire insurance patrol maintained by a board of underwriters in this State.

The court’s opinion provides clear information and simply addressing those points in a letter to the insurance company should put the matter to bed.

“The courts have repeatedly held that there is no single fact that controls the existence or nonexistence of an employment relationship. But many factors, such as the right to control the manner in which the work is done, the method of payment, the right to discharge, the skill required in the work done, and the furnishing of tools, material and equipment, *433 have evidentiary value and must be considered. (Henn v. Industrial Com. 3 Ill. 2d 325.) In the case of Meyer v. Industrial Com. 347 Ill. 172, the court held that in determining that the relationship of master and servant exists, it is essential that the control of the servant includes the power to discharge. “Village of Creve Cooeur V. Industrial Comm.” (emphasis added for clarity)

Applying the court’s logic to Shelby County:

• Does the County Board control the manner in which the work is done?  YES – County Board Approval of SOP’s and SOG’s
• Method of Payment? YES – Outlined in formation resolution
• Right to Discharge? YES – as it relates to the commander but no reference to other members in the resolution.  Shoring this up with a process where the Board controls the discharge of the members of the team should properly address this point. 
• Skill required in the work done? YES – Found in SOP/SOG’s approved by the County Board
  
• Furnishing of the tools, material and equipment? YES – the vast majority of the tools, materials, and equipment have been provided with county expenditures.

The only thing we see that is missing is a “roster“, which we suspect the insurance company would want a copy of.  As far as the auditor’s desire for a copy, without knowing what financial information they are looking at we can only assume it was asked for so that they can verify funds being spent were done by an actual member of the dive team.